IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7039 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- T.S. SUKUMARAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RESIDING AT JAYA NIKETHAN, TEMPLE ROAD, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ANIL - SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7039 of 2008 ---------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner was working as Store Keeper Grade II in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board {for short “the Board”}. On completion of 10 years service, he was given a Grade Promotion and his pay was fixed in the scale of pay applicable to the next Grade - Store Keeper Grade I. On completion of 25 years of service, another grade promotion was given and the pay was fixed in the scale of pay applicable to Chief Store Keeper. By virtue of a long term settlement Ext.P1, Store Keepers Grade II were integrated with Junior Superintendent. It seems that the petitioner did not agree to the integration of the post of Store Keeper Grade I and Junior Superintendent, because he had already been granted grade promotions by virtue of his length of service. Nevertheless, he and similarly situated persons were subjected to integration as per Ext.P2. It was found that consequent upon such integration, the incumbent was brought down to a lower time scale of pay. This was challenged by a person, who W.P.(C).NO.7039/08 :: 2 :: was similarly situated like the petitioner herein, before this court which led to Ext.P4 judgment, wherein the Board was directed to reconsider the case of that person with reference to the higher grade, he was drawing prior to the integration and then to equate him with appropriate post in the ministerial cadre. Ext.P4 judgment in this regard was affirmed in Ext.P3. 3. Apparently, litigation did not end there, inasmuch as that, the direction in Exts.P3 and P4 were not fully carried out on the premise that, earlier Store Keepers Grade II did not have the qualification to be considered for integration to any higher post. The order passed in this regard was again challenged before this court by certain other persons. This led to Ext.P5 judgment. The petitioner has filed Ext.P7 representation pointing out these aspects and claimed the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment. Since action has not been taken on Ext.P7, this writ petition has been filed. 4. In my view, the question as to whether the posts, which were being occupied by the petitioner could be W.P.(C).NO.7039/08 :: 3 :: integrated to the higher post on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments had to be considered, de hors the issue of 'qualification', as has been held by this court in Ext.P5 judgment. If the petitioner herein is similarly situated to that of the petitioners in Ext.P5 judgment, he is entitled to similar treatment. 6. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board Sri.K.S.Anil submits that the claim made in this case is belated. Normally, I would have appreciated this contention and possibly would have accepted it also. But, I take note of the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and retired on 30.11.1990. May be, for several constraints he did not approach this court earlier. I have considered the same issue in W.P.(C)No.5774/08 and connected cases vide judgment dated 19.2.2008. Moreover, the petitioner is only claiming a benefit, which has been granted to person, who, according to him, is similarly situated as per Ext.P5 judgment. In such circumstances, the Board may look into the claim made by the petitioner. W.P.(C).NO.7039/08 :: 4 :: In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation, in the light of Ext.P5 judgment and take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge