Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1039 (GAU)

S. K. PRASAD v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-08-14

L.S.JAMIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : L.S. JAMIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The State respondent has filed counter affidavit. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has failed to file counter affidavit. 3. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned CGC has produced two letters dated 11.01.2012 addressed to the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 respectively and another two letters both dated 30.03.2012 addressed to the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 respectively requesting for instructions. He submits that despite writing to the respondents, he has received no instructions. Accordingly, this case is taken up without counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 4. The present writ petition is filed by 50 Lecturers (Selection Grade) now redesignated as Associate Professor serving in different Government colleges under the Government of Mizoram. 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as College Lecturers on different dates between the years 1980 and 1984 and presently they are placed as Lecturers (Selection Grade) on completion of 16 years of service after 1996 and before 27.07.1998. The respondent No. 4 by a notification dated 27.03.1991 had implemented revision of pay scale of teachers, Tutors/Demonstrators, Librarians and Physical Education personnel's in Universities and Colleges as per the Scheme drawn up in line with the Government of India guidelines issued pursuant to the recommendation of the 4th Central Pay Commission in consultation with the University Grant Commission ('UGC' in short) and the said Scheme was made retrospectively effective from 01.01.1986. The said Scheme provided for career advancement in respect of Lecturers under Clause 10 thereof. The said Scheme provided that Lecturers in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000/- per month were to be placed in the senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000/- per month on completion of 8 years of continuous service and after participating in two Refresher Courses. Further, the Lecturers in the senior scale were made eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Reader in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5700/- per month on completion of 8 years of continuous service in the senior scale. 3000-5000/- per month on completion of 8 years of continuous service and after participating in two Refresher Courses. Further, the Lecturers in the senior scale were made eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Reader in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5700/- per month on completion of 8 years of continuous service in the senior scale. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioners are governed by the provision of the said career advancement Scheme and therefore, the minimum length of service required by the petitioners and other Lecturers senior to them for promotion to Lecturer (Selection Grade) was 16 years. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had effected the revision of pay scale of teachers in Universities and Colleges following the revision of pay scale of Central Government employees on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission by letter dated 27.07.1998. Another letter was issued by the respondent No. 2 on the same date i.e. 27.07.1998 addressed to the respondent No. 3 with regard to revision of pay scale of teachers in Central Universities and the Colleges there under. The said letter also contained revised career advancement Scheme of teachers wherein it is provided that the minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturers (Senior Grade) would be 4 years for those with Ph.D, 5 years for those with M. Phil and 6 years for those as a Lecturer. It was provided further that the eligibility to move into the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, the minimum length of service as Lecturer (Senior Grade) shall be uniformly 5 years. Therefore, the total length of service required by those Lecturers without Ph.D/M.Phil for being placed in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade) as per the revised career advancement Scheme under the 5th Pay Revision has been reduced to 11 years while it was 16 years under the earlier Scheme. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that by a letter dated 06.11.1998, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had made certain modifications in the Scheme provided in the letter dated 27.07.1998. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that by a letter dated 06.11.1998, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had made certain modifications in the Scheme provided in the letter dated 27.07.1998. By the letter dated 06.11.1998, it was provided under Clause 1(i) that the revised scale mentioned in Annexure-1 of the letter dated 27.07.1998 shall be effective from 01.01.1996 and that fixation of pay of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- and who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader as on 01.01.1996 will be made in a manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs. 14940/- in the revised scale of Rs. 12000-18300/- as and when they complete 5 years in the grade by allowing them to enjoy the benefit of 2 years advance increment. 7. He submits that there were some confusion with regard to the implementation of the orders communicated by the letters dated 27.07.1998 and 6.11.1998 and therefore, the respondent No. 2 after consulting with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) had made clarification on such queries by letter dated 24.03.1999. By the said clarification letter dated 24.03.1999, it was clarified that the petitioners who were not in a position as Lecturer (Selection Grade) as on 01.01.1996 are not eligible for getting the benefit of fixation of their pay at Rs. 14940/- on completion of 5 years of service as Lecturer (Selection Grade) inasmuch as payment of such benefit would be contrary to the decision of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as conveyed by the letter dated 27.07.1998 and 06.11.1999. 8. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel submits that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Mizoram in accordance with the provision under paragraph 7.8.0 of the UGC norms, adopted by the Government of Mizoram had issued a notification dated 08.02.2008 providing that the Government of Mizoram had decided that those Lecturers who were placed as Lecturers (Senior Grade) after completion of 8 years service are eligible for placement to Lecturer (Selection Grade) on completion of 11 years without necessarily completing 5 years as Lecturer (Senior Grade). It further provided that the date of effect of placement of the Lecturer (Selection Grade), even after adjustment of the years cannot go beyond 27.07.1998 as that was the date of effect for career advancement Scheme. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the revised career advancement Scheme as communicated by the letters dated 27.07.1998 and 06.11.1998 have been made applicable only to those Lecturers junior to the petitioners i.e. those who joined their services as Lecturer on or after 27.07.1984, had effected the petitioners for up gradation to the post of Lecturer (Senior Grade) in the revised scale of Rs. 10000-Rs. 15200/- on completion of 6 years of service as Lecturer and after serving as Lecturer (Senior Grade) for another 5 years they were promoted to Lecturer (Selection Grade) in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- p.m. Therefore, those Lecturers junior to the petitioners required only 11 years of service for being placed in the Lecturer (Selection Grade) while the petitioners required 16 years of service for the same. 10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the College Lecturers senior to the petitioners were allowed to enjoy the benefit of 2 (two) years advance increment by allowing them to enjoy the pay at Rs. 14,940/- on having 5 years service as Lecturer (Senior Grade). However, no benefit was made available to the petitioners. The petitioners therefore required 23 years of continuous service for fixing their pay at Rs. 14,940/- while their seniors required only 21 years and their juniors required only 18 years. It is also submitted that the impugned notification dated 05.03.2009 had allowed 142 Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) including the petitioners who have been allowed the pay of Rs. 14,940/- per month had withdrawn the said benefit and directing recovery of excess payment already made to them on the ground that they were not eligible/entitled as per the impugned notification dated 06.11.1998. He also submits that similar matter have been decided by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in connection with WA No. 1394/2008 by judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 wherein it was held that those teachers who were Lecturers as on 01.01.1996 and who were subsequently placed in the Selection Grade after 01.01.1996 will be entitled to draw their pay at Rs. 14,940/- on completion of 5 years in the Selection Grade. 11. 14,940/- on completion of 5 years in the Selection Grade. 11. He therefore submits that the classification made in respect of the petitioners vis-a-vis their seniors as well as their juniors is not founded upon any intelligible differentia which would distinguish the petitioners from other group and therefore the differentia does not have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In support of his case, he has relied in the case of D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 and in the case of K. Thimmappa and Others v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and Another reported in (2001) 2 SCC 259 . 12. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram submits that the University Grants Commission (UGC in short) in exercise of the powers and function stipulated under Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 has published various Norms and Regulations from time to time which are applied for regulation of the services of College Teachers and equivalent cadres in Colleges of State Government if they have been adopted by the State Governments. The College Teachers and equivalent cadres cannot claim any benefit beyond the provision prescribed by the UGC. The UGC Norms, 1998 in connection with implementation of the Central 5th Pay Commission which was circulated by the Ministry of Home Resource Development by letter dated 27.07.1998 has been adopted by the Government of Mizoram by a notification dated 12.10.1999 and the same has been implemented as per various provisions recommended by the UGC. He submits that whenever there is revision of pay or otherwise, there has been equal treatment of both seniors and junior as deemed fit by the Central Pay Commission and bunching of one increment for every 3 years have been awarded to seniors for fixation of their pay at the appropriate stage in the revised pay. However, such benefit cannot be granted for service less than 3 years. Further, the date of placement of the petitioners and others who were juniors to them was fixed on 27.07.1998 being the effective date of the said Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). However, such benefit cannot be granted for service less than 3 years. Further, the date of placement of the petitioners and others who were juniors to them was fixed on 27.07.1998 being the effective date of the said Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). No pay of Government servant could be fixed in the 5th Central Pay before the effective date of the 5th Central pay i.e. 01.01.1996 and therefore the petitioners were not deprived of the benefit and in fact they had received certain benefits as their date of placement to Lecturer (Selection Grade) were revised to be effective with retrospective effect from 27.07.1998 which was also given to their juniors. 13. He also submits that the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as communicated by the letter dated 27.07.1998 read with the letter dated 06.11.1998 has been made applicable not only to those Lecturers junior to the petitioners but also to the petitioners provided that the based line i.e. 27.07.1998 is complied with and therefore fixation of pay of juniors as per the pay of the seniors does not amount to deprivation of benefit as the entitlement of the seniors is also entitled to the juniors as provided by the pay revision or pay anomaly. With regard to any doubt for implementation of the Central 5th Pay in Universities and Colleges were clarified by the MHRD letter dated 24.03.1999 and in pursuance to such clarification, the reduction of the required length of service for placement of Lecturer (Selection Grade) to 11 years irrespective of the length of service in the Senior Grade was declared as the base line of the benefit by the Government of Mizoram by notification dated 08.02.2008. The Government of Mizoram had therefore implemented the Scheme of fixation of pay and placement of Lecturer to Selection Grade as per the letter of the UGC. He also submits that the pays of Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) who were not in the position as on 01.01.1996 could not be fixed at Rs. 14,940/- on their completion of 5 years in the Grade. Similarly, placement of Lecturer to Selection Grade on completion of 11 years cannot be made retrospective effect earlier than 27.07.1998 even if such Lecturer had completed 11 years of service before 27.07.1998 as the Scheme came into effect only from 27.07.1998. 14,940/- on their completion of 5 years in the Grade. Similarly, placement of Lecturer to Selection Grade on completion of 11 years cannot be made retrospective effect earlier than 27.07.1998 even if such Lecturer had completed 11 years of service before 27.07.1998 as the Scheme came into effect only from 27.07.1998. The Government of Mizoram has been enforcing the provision made by the MHRD/UGC for regularisation of the service of the College Lecturer and equivalent cadre in Mizoram as the UGC norms/regulation cannot be violated. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition is misplaced inasmuch as no injustice has been caused to the writ petitioners and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. 14. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 while adopting the submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram, further submits that the letters dated 27.07.1998 and 06.11.1998 should be read with the earlier letter dated 27.07.1998. He therefore submits that respondents have committed no errors and therefore this writ petition should be dismissed. 15. The submissions of the learned counsels for the parties have been considered. 16. The petitioners are praying for the following relief:- "In the premises, it is most humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioners shall not be given the benefit of fixation of their pay at the minimum of Rs. 14,940/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- p.m on their completion of 5 years as Lecturer (Selection Grade) as was done in the case of those Lecturers Senior to them, not covered by the revised Career Advancement Scheme which was effective from 27.07.1998, by modifying or setting aside the impugned decisions communicated vide letter dated 06.11.1998 r/w letter dated 27.07.1998 with all consequential benefits, and after hearing both the parties, to allow this writ petition, and to pass any other order(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper." 17. In support of their contention, the petitioners has also made a categorical statement in paragraph-12 of the writ petition, as under:- "12. That similar problems have been faced by Lecturers of Colleges in different States of India, who moved into Lecturer (Selection Grade) between 1/1/1996 and 27/7/98 as the petitioner. In support of their contention, the petitioners has also made a categorical statement in paragraph-12 of the writ petition, as under:- "12. That similar problems have been faced by Lecturers of Colleges in different States of India, who moved into Lecturer (Selection Grade) between 1/1/1996 and 27/7/98 as the petitioner. At this stage, it may be pertinent to mention that a group of 72 unfortunate Lecturers in the said category in the State of Kerala had filed a Petitioner (i.e., Original Petition No. 36112/2002) and another batch of Petitioners who were 25 in number had filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P (C) No. 3123 of 2004 (V) before the High Court of Kerala for the purpose of doing away with the discriminatory treatment meted out against them on account of the said Letters dated 27/7/98 and 6/11/99. While challenging the legality and propriety of the said Letters, the petitioners therein had taken the sand that the State of Uttar Pradesh had implemented the said Career Advancement Scheme with the concurrence from the UGC with effect from 1/1/96 instead of 27/7/98. Both the said petitions were taken up together as the issue involved were the same and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 16/1/2008. A perusal of the said judgment would clearly indicate that in view of the Govt. of India and the UGC having given their stamp of approval for the action taken by the State of U.P in the matter of rectifying the anomaly in respect of Lecturers of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon'ble High court of Kerala had also come to the conclusion that denying the very same benefit of fixation of pay @ Rs. 14,940/- to the said petitioners who were placed at the Selection Grade Lecturer in between 1/1/96 and 27/7/98 on their completion of five years in the said Grade. Would amount to arbitrariness, unreasonableness, discrimination and violation of their Fundamental Rights. Accordingly, vide the said judgment dated 16/1/2008 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had directed the said authorities to afford similar benefits to the petitioners therein by allowing fixation of their pay at Rs. 14,940/- p.m though they were in position as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in between 1/1/96 and 27/7/98. Accordingly, vide the said judgment dated 16/1/2008 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had directed the said authorities to afford similar benefits to the petitioners therein by allowing fixation of their pay at Rs. 14,940/- p.m though they were in position as Lecturer (Selection Grade) in between 1/1/96 and 27/7/98. The said judgment dated 16/1/2008 though assailed by the Union of India and the University Grants Commission by filing W.A. No. 1394/2008 along with other Writ Appeals, however, the same were dismissed vide Judgment dated 21/1/2009" 18. From the relief sought for by the petitioners, it can be seen that the present writ petition is directed against the action of the respondent No. 1 and 2 inasmuch as, the impugned letters in question i.e., letters dated 27.7.1998 (Annexure-2 and 3, to the writ petition) and letter dated 6.11.1998 (Annexure-4, to the writ petition), has been issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India. But most unfortunately, the respondent No. 1 and 2, representing the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India, by not filing affidavit has failed to assist this Court. In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 it has been held that the Government should conduct itself in a responsible manner and assist the High Court by placing the true and relevant facts by filing proper affidavit and documents that may be available with it. It is the constitutional obligation and duty of the respondent No. 1 and 2, to place true and relevant facts by filing proper affidavits so as to enable this Court to discharge its constitutional duties. Therefore, the manner in which the respondent No. 1 and 2, has conducted itself in the present case by choosing not to file affidavit is highly deprecated. 19. At paragraph-3 of the letter dated 27.07.1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) it has been provided, inter alia, that the State Governments, after taking local consideration, may also decide in their discretion, to introduce scales of pay different from those mentioned in the Scheme and may give effect to the revised scales of pay from January 1, 1996 or a later date. In the affidavit filed for and on behalf of the State of Mizoram, the respondent No. 4, at paragraph 8, 9 and 10, has stated as under:- "8. In the affidavit filed for and on behalf of the State of Mizoram, the respondent No. 4, at paragraph 8, 9 and 10, has stated as under:- "8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition, I say that whenever there is revision of pay or otherwise, there has been equal treatment of seniors and juniors as deemed fit by the Central Pay Commission and bunching of one increment for every 3 years has also been awarded to seniors for fixation of their pay at the appropriate stage in the revised pay. However, the benefit cannot be granted for service less than 3 years. For instance, the 5th Central pay was effective from 01.01.1996. Mr. Liana joined the post of Assistant Grade on 25.07.1993 and Mr. Sanga joined the same post on 30.11.1995. Their pays in the revised pay (5th pay) were fixed at the minimum of Rs. 5500/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- p.m. In that case, Mr. Liana who was senior to Liana by more than 2(two) years could not complain their equal pays as he had not completed 3 years for availing bunching as on 01.01.1996. Similarly, the date of placement of the petitioners and other who were junior to them to Lecturer (selection grade) was re-fixed on 27.07.1998 being the effective date of the said CAS. As in the case of Mr. Liana mentioned above, the petitioners have no right to claim re-fixation of their date of placement to Lecturer (selection grade) before the effective date of the CAS on the ground of equal treatment with their juniors. The pay of no Government servant could be fixed in the 5th Central Pay before the effective date of the 5th Central Pay i.e 01.01.1996. the petitioners were nor deprived of the benefit and they rather get certain benefits as their dates of placement to Lecturer (Selection grade) were revised to be effective with retrospective effect from 27.07.1998 and their juniors also got the benefit. 9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No.11 of the writ petition, I say that the CAS as communicated vide letter dated 27.07.1998 read with the letter dated 06.11.1998 have been made applicable not only to those Lecturers juniors to the petitioners but also to the petitioners themselves provided that the based line i.e 27.07.1998 be complied with. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No.11 of the writ petition, I say that the CAS as communicated vide letter dated 27.07.1998 read with the letter dated 06.11.1998 have been made applicable not only to those Lecturers juniors to the petitioners but also to the petitioners themselves provided that the based line i.e 27.07.1998 be complied with. As already mentioned in para No.10 above, there has been equal treatment of seniors and juniors as deemed fit by the Central Pay Commission whenever there is revision of pay or otherwise. Fixation of the pays of juniors as per the pay of seniors does not amount to deprivation of the benefit as the entitlement of the seniors is also entitled by the juniors as provided in the pay revision of pay anomaly. It may be mentioned that the petitioners envy their juniors who were placed to Lecturer (Selection grade) on 27.07.1998 as per the CAS. Had the said CAS been implemented earlier, the petitioners should have been place to Lecturer (Selection grade) as soon as they completed 11 years of service. 10. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition, I say that whenever any benefit is granted to Government employees, it should be effective from the date of issue of the relevant order, notification and letter as the case may be while the pay revision came to effective from 1st January of the relevant period. This was also clarified by the Director (U) MHRD (Deptt. of education) vide letter No. F. 1-22/97-U.I dated 24.03.1999. in the said letter, eight nos. of point of doubt in connection with implementation of the Central 5th pay in Universities and colleges were clarified and the clarification in respect of the effective date of benefits and the revised pay (5th pay) is a given below:- S/N Point of doubt Clarification 8 Whether the promotion on completion of requisite number of years which has been reduced now will be from a retrospective date or from a prospective date. Only the revised pay scales are effective from a retrospective date i.e 1st January 1996. Other benefits are allowed from the dates of issue of the respective notifications by the Government of India i.e 27th July, 1998, or 6th Nov., 1998, as the case may be. Only the revised pay scales are effective from a retrospective date i.e 1st January 1996. Other benefits are allowed from the dates of issue of the respective notifications by the Government of India i.e 27th July, 1998, or 6th Nov., 1998, as the case may be. In compliance of the clarification made by the MHRD, 27th July, 1998 being the date of issue of the UGC letter reducing the required length of service for placement of Lecturer (Selection grade) to 11 (Eleven) years irrespective of the length of service in the senior grade was declared as the base line of the benefit vide Government of Mizoram Notification No. G. 12017/5/2007-THE dated 08.02.2008. In case of fixation of the pay of Reader/Lecturers (Selection grade) at Rs. 14,940/- on completion of 5(five) years in the Grade, Government of Mizoram implemented the scheme as per clarification on point of doubts nO.5 given by the Director, MHRD. Since the benefit was not applicable to Reader/Lecturer (Selection grade) who were not in a position as on 01.01.1996, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, favoured the Government of Mizoram in Writ Appeal No. 3/2010. Therefore, Government of Mizoram implemented the scheme of fixation of pay and placement of Lecturers to selection grade as per the letter of UGC and it cannot violate the provision made by the UGC". 20. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing and setting aside the impugned decision communicated vide letter dated 06.11.1998 read with letter dated 27.07.1998. However, whether it will be proper, at this stage, for the Court to issue a writ of Mandamus by directing the respondent No. 1 and 2, to modify the impugned decisions communicated by letter dated 06.11.1998 read with letter dated 27.07.1998 and to give all consequential benefits to the petitioners, needs to be considered. 21. In State of Haryana v. Channan Mal reported in (1977) 1 SCC 340 , the Supreme Court has held that any petitioner who applies for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus should, in compliance with a well known rule of practise ordinarily, first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show that it has refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before applying to a court for such an order even where the alleged obligation is established. In other words, there must be a demand and refusal as condition precedent to the issuance of the writ of mandamus. 22. In paragraph-19 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated as under:- "That the petitioners having approached the authorities concerned i.e respondent No. 4 for taking measures for rectifying the wrong perpetrated upon them have exhausted all other remedies available to them. However, since no remedial measure have been taken as prayed for by the petitioners, now the petitioners are approaching this Hon'ble Court. In fact, there is no other alternative as quick and efficacious as the present writ petition." From the submission of the petitioners what is clear is that the petitioners have approached only the respondent No. 4, the State of Mizoram and not the Union of India or the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India, New Delhi against whom the writ of Mandamus is sought. 23. In view of what has been discussed above I am not inclined, at this stage, to issue a writ of Mandamus as prayed for. However, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners need to approach the respondent No. 1 and 2, by way of submitting representation highlighting their grievances and the respondent No. 1 and 2, to examine and consider the same. 24. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit representation along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent No. 1 and 2. Such representation shall be submitted within a period of 2(two) weeks from today. The respondent No. 1 and 2, shall examine and dispose the same with a speaking order within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation and the same shall be intimated to the petitioners. While considering the representation of the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 and 2 shall also take into consideration the judgment and order dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1394, 1881, 1925 and 2067 of 2008 which is annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure-7. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court, if further aggrieved by the action of the respondents. 25. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. No costs.