Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 57 (KER)

Samuel v. State of Kerala

1998-02-09

P.A.MOHAMMAD

body1998
Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed, J. The first petitioner is a retired Joint Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission and the second petitioner is the Deputy Secretary now working as District Officer of the Kerala Public Service Commission Kannur District Office. The main prayer in this writ petition are: (1) to quash Ext. P5 order of the Government not to grant 'special pay' to the Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries in the office of the Kerala Public Service Commission and (2) to give a direction to the respondents to disburse the 'special pay' at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem to the 1st petitioner during the period from 1.7.1988 to 30.9.1990 and to the second petitioner for the period from 1.12.1989 onwards. 2. In paragraphs 8.66.4 and 8.66.5 of the report of the 5th Kerala Pay Commission, a 'special pay' of Rs. 200 per month is recommended to the Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of the Administrative Secretariat. The said paragraphs are extracted below: "8.66 Secretariat (i) Administrative Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary 8.66.4 Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries are end tied to circulate files direct to the Ministers. Each in his own sphere is normally the last noting official on the files falling within his purview. It has been a standing grievance of the Secretariat Officers that while IAS Officers at these levels are getting special pay, the Secretariat Service Officers do not get any special pay. The cases are not exactly similar, since I. A.S. Officers get the same basic pay whether they are Deputy Secretary or Additional Secretary. However the Commission feel that these officers do have higher responsibilities of a special nature when they perform their duties as Joint Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries etc. We therefore, recommend joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries may be given a special pay of Rs. 200/- P.M. in view of the special nature of their work as direct circulating officers. 8.66.5 The special pay recommended to joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries will be available only when they are in the Secretariat Organisations which have an integral connection with Secretariat (such as pay commission etc) and not when they are on deputation to other posts." The Commission recommended the same rate of special pay for Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries in the Finance, Law and Legislature Secretariats. Similarly the Commission recommended special pay in the equal amount to Deputy Secretaries in Governor's Secretariat. The Government accepted these recommendations and granted the special pay as per the pay revision order issued on 1.11.1989. 3. Though the Pay Commission recommended to grant the special pay to Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries only while they are working in the Secretariat (including office of the Pay Commission) and not while they are on deputation, the Government issued G.O. (MS) No.155/90/13/Fin. dated 6.3.1990 extending the benefits of special pay during the periods of deputation as well. Ext. P1 is the copy of the said Government Order. With passing of Ext. P1 with effect from 1.7.1988 (date of effect of pay revision) all the Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries in the Government Secretariat and Governor's Secretariat were paid special pay of Rs. 200/- per mensem. However, the revision of pay scales and other conditions of service to the staff of the Public Service Commission on par with the revision of scales of pay and conditions of service recommended for corresponding posts in the Secretariat, the Pay Commission omitted to make a specific recommendation regarding payment of special pay to the Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries in the Office of the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the petitioners and others submitted Ext. P2 representation to the Government. However, the Government did not consider the demand while issuing pay revision order on 1.11.1989. The said representation was rejected by the Government as per Ext. P5. The Government expressed their inability to concede to the request for payment of special pay to Deputy secretaries/joint Secretaries of Kerala Public Service Commission as per the said order. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Clause 12(1) of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Composition and Conditions of Service of Members and Staff) Regulations, 1957 (for short 'Regulation'), the petitioners are eligible to receive special pay recommended by 5th Kerala Pay Commission. This is a regulation issued by the Governor of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Art.318 of the Constitution of India. This is a regulation issued by the Governor of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Art.318 of the Constitution of India. Clause (1) of Regulation 12 is as follows: "(1) The Commission may employ, in addition to the Secretary, the staff specified in Annexure I to these regulations on the scales of pay mentioned therein and dearness and other allowances permissible to them under the State Rules for such scales of pay." In view of PW.1 Government Order, the benefit of special pay will be available during the period of deputation also. The 'special pay' has been recommended by the Pay Commission in view of the special nature of the work done by the Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries. That means 'special pay' would come within the meaning of other allowances permissible to them under the State Rules' contained in Clause (1) of Regulation 12. That being so, the petitioners and other similarly placed officers are eligible to receive the 'special pay' recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. 5. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Government have passed Ext. P1 order dated 21.6.1996 according sanction for the payment of special pay at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary in the Office of the Kerala Public Service Commission. In view of this subsequent development the contention raised by the 1 st respondent in the counter affidavit to the effect that the special pay was confined exclusively for secretariat officers does not arise for consideration. Ext. P5 letter is therefore invalid and hence it is set aside. 6. The only question remains to be considered is whether the petitioners and others are entitled to receive the arrears of special pay with effect from 1.7.1988, that is to say, from the date of pay revision 1988. Ext. P1 Government Order specifically makes the pay revision effective from 1.7.1988. However, Ext. P6 order provides that the grant of special pay is operative only with effect from the date of issue of the order, that is, on 21.6.1996. The counsel for the petitioners seriously challenges the above direction. He points out that when the petitioners were also treated on par with the Government Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary etc. there was no reason to restrict the grant of special pay with effect from 1.7.1988. This submission appears to have some force. The counsel for the petitioners seriously challenges the above direction. He points out that when the petitioners were also treated on par with the Government Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary etc. there was no reason to restrict the grant of special pay with effect from 1.7.1988. This submission appears to have some force. When by Ext. P6, the Government have accorded sanction the benefit of special pay, there is no justification for restricting it with effect from the date of order, namely, 21.6.1996. I have already found that the petitioners and similarly placed officers are eligible to receive the special pay recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. That means, they are entitled to receive the special pay with effect from 1.7.1988 as recognised in Ext. P1 Government Order. There will be a declaration to that effect. Consequently, I direct the first respondent to disburse the special pay at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the 1 st petitioner during the period from 1.7.1988 to 30.9.1990 and to the second petitioner from 1.12.1989 onwards with consequential benefits as prayed for in the Writ Petition. I also direct the first respondent to issue appropriate consequential orders in this behalf without undue delay. The Original Petition is allowed as above.