Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, having worked as a Pump Operator in the 1st respondent Corporation, retired from service on 31.12.2012. Despite lapse of about two years, the respondent authority has not settled the petitioner's retirement benefits. Perplexed by the inordinate delay, when the petitioner enquired with the authorities, he came to know that the 3rd respondent informed the 1st respondent that the petitioner's grade had to be revised and the pay also had to be re-fixed. Acting on the said advice of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent is said to have issued Ext.P4 order proposing to revise the grade and pay and also the consequential terminal benefits due to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner W.P.(C.) No. 10888/2014 -2-
ventilating his grievance that the said proposal contained in Ext.P4 is illegal and arbitrary, made Ext.P13 representation to the 1st respondent. Complaining of its non-consideration, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion too, the 1st respondent made efforts to revise the grade and pay of the similarly placed persons on their superannuation. In one such instance, some of the aggrieved persons approached this Court by filing a writ petition. Eventually, this Court through Ext.P6 judgment dated 21.03.2013 in W.A. No. 374 of 2013 directed the 1st respondent not to undertake any revision of grade or pay and to settle the terminal benefits of the said employees going by their grade and pay at the time of their superannuation. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges this Court to issue a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation taking into account Ext.P6 judgment of this Court.
4. The learned Standing Counsel, on his part, has submitted that the respondent authorities do not have any objection to consider W.P.(C.) No. 10888/2014 -3-
Ext.P13 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P13 representation of the petitioner objectively, especially by taking into account the ratio laid down by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If desired, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No. 10888/2014 -4-