Kerala High Court
WP(C)/10968/2010 of SANTHAKUMARAN N. Vs KSEB on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 10968 of 2010 (U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SANTHAKUMARAN .N., ASST.ENGINEER (RTD.), K.S.E.B, AGED 68
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 10968 of 2010 (U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
-------------------
SANTHAKUMARAN .N., ASST.ENGINEER (RTD.), K.S.E.B, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.LATE MR.NANU, THARAYIL VEEDU, THANKASSERY, KOLLAM-7.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ,
SMT.G.R.MANJU.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
3. THE CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
BY SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, S.C, K.S.E.B.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C). NO.10968/2010-U:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EB8/WRIT PETITION 6207/08 DTD. 28/07/2009.EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.EBC/I/II/96 DTD. 30/03/1996.EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 20/10/2003 IN O.P.NO.20624 OF 2002.EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/11/2001 IN O.P.NO.12953 OF 1998.EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/08/2009 OF PETITIONER.
EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PAY FIXN/RIA/5/25/AI DTD. 15/09/2009.EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 03/03/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.6207 OF 2008.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Prv.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10968
--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrievedby the action of the respondents in cancelling the 3[rd] HigherGrade promotion after having decided a lis with respect tothe claim for junior - senior fixation of 1[st] Grade Overseer asevident from Ext.P1.
2. Ext.P1 order has been issued on the basis of a claimmade by the petitioner that he is liable to be promoted to thepost of 1[st] Grade Overseer in line with the promotion grantedto his junior. After a series of litigations and as directed bythis Court in O.P.Nos. 1455/1984, 2799/1984 and 8415/1987,Ext. P1 came to be passed by which sanction was accorded tofix the pay of the petitioner at Rs.405/- with effect from08.9.1972 in the scale of pay of Rs.245-465 on par with hisjunior Sri.P.G.Parameswaran with next increment on 1.3.1973raising the pay to Rs. 425/-. It is the case of the petitioner thathe entered the service of the Board on 19.1.1965 and waspromoted as Second Grade Overseer on 18.5.1966 and as First
Grade Overseer on 01.3.1972. Ext.P1 order was passed at thetime when a claim in that regard was pending before this Courtin W.P.(C) No. 6207/2008. Ext.P7 is the said judgment by whichthis Court observed that having regard to the fact that theBoard has issued Ext.P1 order regarding Junior-Senior fixationas sought for by the petitioner, there is substantial complianceof the directions issued earlier. It was also observed that inthe process of extending the said benefit, the Third HigherGrade promotion which was sanctioned to the petitionerhas been cancelled and it open for the petitioner to agitate thesame separately.
3. In fact, by Ext.P2 dated 30.3.1996 the petitioner wasalso granted the Third Higher Grade promotion with effect from01.8.95 and the petitioner retired from service on 30.4.1996after enjoying the said benefit. For the purpose of computingpension the entire Third Higher Grade was also taken intoconsideration and the pension was accordingly paid with allthe pensionary benefits.
4. It is the complaint of the petitioner that while issuingExt.P1, there was a direction to recover certain amounts from the pensionary benefits and petitioner had applied to theBoard for necessary information and Ext.P6 is the saidinformation, by which it is indicated that the Third HigherGrade granted to the petitioner was withdrawn.
5. The petitioner further submits that in respect ofsimilarly placed persons, this Court in Ext.P3 judgment hadopined that it is not open for the Court to deny the benefit ofLong Term Settlement and the Third Higher Grade in respectof those persons. The petitioner also stands in the same footing.Ext.P4 is the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Courtwhich confirms Ext.P3 judgment.
6. According to the petitioner, he is also a similarlyplaced person and merely for the reason that he has notchallenged the denial of the Third Higher Grade promotion atthat point of time, he should not be denied the said benefit.
7. The Board has filed a counter affidavit inter aliacontending that while implementing the provision of LongTerm Settlement, it was noticed that certain persons did notqualify for the grant of Third Higher Grade and therefore it wasnot possible to implement the said Settlement. This matter was considered by this Court in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments andhad come to a categoric conclusion that such attitude cannot betaken by the Board. In fact the same principle will apply, asfar as the petitioner is also concerned. That apart, refusal toprovide the benefit of Third Higher Grade was known to thepetitioner only at the time when Ext.P1 came to be passed.That being the situation, the petitioner is justified inapproaching this Court seeking the relief as prayed for. Thecontention of the Board that the benefit cannot be extended tothe petitioner since he was not a party to the earlier writpetition, cannot be justified. The petitioner had been giventhe benefit of Third Higher Grade promotion with effect from1.8.1995 which cannot be withdrawn at this point of time.
8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is only to beallowed. The petitioner is entitled for all the monetarybenefits of the Higher Grade promotion and it is not open forthe respondents to revise the terminal benefits of thepetitioner by denying the Third Higher Grade promotion.
5
With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
rka