~~~~~~~~~~~ Antony Dominic, J.
Judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring the entitlement of the 1st respondent to retain the first time time bound higher grade in the scale of pay Rs.6675-10550 granted as per Ext.P3 and the further direction to consider 1st respondent for grant of second higher grade from 1.7.2006 in the scale of pay of Rs.11910-19350 is impugned in this Writ Appeal filed by the State.
2. The 1st respondent commenced his service as a Workshop instructor on 1.6.1987. On completion of 10 years in the entry cadre, by Ext.P3 he was granted the first time bound higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 with effect from 1.7.1997 to the post of Assistant Lecturer. Subsequently, on completion of 8 years in that grade, 1st respondent claimed the second time bound higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.11910-19350. When that claim was pending consideration of the authorities, by Exts.P6 and P10, the first time bound higher grade granted by Ext.P3 was recalled. It was in these circumstances, the Writ Petition was filed.
3. Reason for recalling Ext.P3 was the alleged abolition of the post of Assistant Lecturer in the aided Poly Technique, where the 1st respondent was employed. However, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, such abolition in the Government Colleges was with effect from 21.12.1998 and in the aided sector, with effect from May, 2000. This, therefore, means that the abolition took place only subsequent to 1.7.1997, with effect from which, the 1st respondent was granted the benefit of first time bound higher grade. In our view, subsequent abolition of the post of Assistant Lecturer could not have restricted in depriving the 1st respondent of the benefit of the first time bound higher grade already granted to him by Ext.P3. For this reason, Exts.P6 and P10 could not have been sustained.
4. As far as the second time bound higher grade claimed by the 1st respondent is concerned, in the Writ Petition the learned Single Judge has only ordered consideration of his claim for grant of the said benefit. Therefore, it is left open to the appellant to consider that claim in accordance with law.
We do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
ps/27/6/2014 //True copy// PA to Judge