ANTONY DOMINIC, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C).No.25885/2007 filed by the respondents. The respondents are employees of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board and were working in the category of Upper Division Clerks at the time of when the 1998 pay revision orders were implemented. Their next promotion post was Junior Superintendent. According to them, by virtue of the provisions contained in G.O(P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 they were entitled to get time bound higher grade in the scale of pay to the post of Junior Superintendent. That claim was sought to be negatived relying on Ext.P4, a communication issued by the Government of Kerala. It was therefore they filed the Writ Petition challenging challenging Ext.P4 and asserting their claim for time bound higher grade in the scale of pay to the post of Junior Superintendent. This was accepted by the learned Single Judge and this judgment is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Writ Petitioners.
3. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is mainly relying on Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 19.12.1980, which according to him, clarified that even if the post of Head Clerk is not available between the post of Upper Division Clerks and Junior Superintendents, while giving the benefit of time bound higher grade to the employees in the category of Upper Division Clerks, they will be given higher grade only the scale as applicable to the post of Head Clerks. The learned Government Pleader contended that this Government order still remains in force and that therefore the clarification issued by the Government as per Ext.P4 is consistent with Ext.R2(b) and that hence the claim of the respondents for time bound higher grade in the scale of pay to the post of Junior Superintendent is untenable.
4. However, a reading of Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 19.12.1980 shows that this was issued in the particular context of the claim for time bound higher grade that was implemented by the Government with effect from 1.7.1979 to all non-gazetted officers on completion of 13 years of service in the entry grade. Neither in the subsequent pay revision order issued by the Government on 16.9.1985 nor in the pay revision order dated 25.11.1998 is there any reference or reliance on Ext.R2(b) and on the other hand, the indication that we get from these Government orders is that these were issued in revision of the previous Government orders.
5. Further, if the provisions of the pay revision order dated 25.11.1998 relied on by the respondents are referred to, it can be seen that in cases where there is a promotion post in the direct line of promotion and the time bound higher grade provided is less than the scale of pay prescribed for the promotion post, the Government employees who are eligible for the time bound higher grade are entitled to scale of pay as applicable to the promotion post, provided they are qualified for the higher post. In such circumstances and in the absence of anything to show that Ext.R2(b) still governs the fixation under the Government order dated 25.11.1998, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge upholding the claim of the respondents. The Writ Appeal fails and therefore stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge