Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

    State Of Kerala v. The Accountant General (A&E)

    JUDGMENT

    Kurian Joseph, J.

    The respondent/State in Writ Petition(C) No. 17677/07 is aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.8.2008 The crucial dispute pertains to the pay parity. The petitioner was formerly the Chairman of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The writ petitioner claimed the benefits resting on Exts.P1 and P3 judgments in the case of writ petitioner himself. In Ext.P1 judgment, as confirmed in Ext.P3 bench decision, it was held that the writ petitioner was entitled to parity in the scale of pay as that of the Selection Grade District Judge. The main contention of the State is that the scale is personal. Even assuming so, so long as the person is available, the entire benefits flowing out of the scale of pay should apply to him. That is all what has been held by the learned Single Judge. We also find that the issue on principle is covered against the State by a recent decision of the Apex court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar [2008 (2) KHC 854 (SC)].

    2. Learned Senior Government Pleader further pointed out that the last sentence in the judgment under appeal would give a relief which is not prayed for in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has only said that if any revision is made in the pay scale and other service benefits, such benefits will also be available to the writ petitioner, and nothing more. That is done only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Yet another apprehension of the State is that this would apply to all other officers who have been appointed to similar posts. We are afraid, there is no basis for such apprehension. This court has only dealt with the case of the writ petitioner, in terms of his appointment order and in the light of Exts.P1 and P3 judgments.

    3. We find that the time fixed by the learned Single Judge for disbursal of the benefits has already expired. We make it clear that the benefits as directed in the judgment shall be disbursed to the writ petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within six weeks from today.

    The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    State Of Kerala v. The Accountant General (A&E)
    (Jan 8, 2009)