IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 22761 of 2007(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. A. MOIDEEN, RETD. THIRD GRADE OVERSEER,P.W.D. BUILDING SECTION MANJERI. (RESIDING AT ATHIMANNIL HOUSE,28TH MILE, NARUKARA P.O., MANJERI VIA., MALAPPURAM-676 122). 2. M. BALAKRISHNAN, RETD. THIRD GRADE OVERSEER, P.W.D. BRIDGES SECTION SHORNUR. (RESIDING AT PARAMMEL HOUSE,KARUVAMBRAM WEST, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676 123). BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22761/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.6/2006/PWD DATED 30.1.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 9.3.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 27.9.06 IN WPC NO.14996/06. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB5-12017/07(1) DT 6.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB5-12017/07(2) DT 6.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB5/665/07(1) DT 21.2.2007 ISSUED TO ONE A.P.SANKARAN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.EB5/13175/06 DT 28.9.06 ISSUED TO P.Y.VINCENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB5/9000/06 DT 19.12.06 GIVEN TO E.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GOVERNMENTORDER GO(P) NO.125/06/FIN. DT 17.3.2006. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 17.9.09 IN WPC NO.25874/08 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22761 OF 2007 (I) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is that by Ext.P1 order dated 30/1/2006, Government have sanctioned higher grade for 10, 18 and 23 years in the scale of pay mentioned therein to the 3rd Grade Overseers in PWD having the qualification of JTSLC and implementation of the said order was only from the date of the Government order. It is in these circumstances the writ petition was filed praying for giving the benefit of Ext.P1 and removing the anomaly. 2. This very issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP(C) No.25874/08 and that writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 17th of September, 2009. The reasoning in Ext.P10 judgment referred to above is contained in para 6, which reads as under: In my view, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The complaint of the petitioners,which led to Ext.P1, was that on completion of 10 years, 18 years and 23 years of service, they should be given time bound higher grade at the scale as was given to those who were qualified for further promotions. This request of the petitioners was considered, and though on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds, the request was accepted and their eligibility for the benefit as prayed for by them was recognised. Once the claim is recognised as above, the same should WPC 22761/07 :2 : necessarily take effect from the date on which the petitioners otherwise became eligible for the time bound higher grade, namely, on completion of 10 years, 18 years and 23 years respectively. On the other hand, if according to the 1st respondent, the benefit under Ext.P1 was to take effect from any other date, that ought to have stated in Ext.P1, which also was not done. It was accordingly that the monetary benefits were extended to the petitioners, which is fully in compliance with the spirit of Ext.P1 and therefore there is no question of any recovery being made from the petitioners. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph would show that in view of the above, petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give the petitioners the benefit of Ext.P1 w.e.f. 1/11/98 and give consequential benefits. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp