IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 2322 of 2007 ------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.36850/2002 Dated 17/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S)//RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,VIDHUTHI BHAVANAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M) VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR,KERALA STATE ELECTIRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------- K.G.MOHANACHANDRAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KOLLAKADAVU, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LEKHA BHAVAN, KAITHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON 05/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2322 of 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent herein was the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondent/petitioner joined the K.S.E.Board as Junior Assistant/Cashier on 10.09.1968. He was promoted as Senior Assistant on 18.12.1975. On 18.12.1986, i.e. on completion of 11 years of service, as per the then rules in force, he was given grade promotion as Superintendent. Still later, on 10.9.1993, he was given grade promotion in the scale of pay of Assistant Accounts Officer, which is the promotion post of Superintendent. Later, on 19.9.1998, he was given cadre promotion as Superintendent. As mentioned earlier, he was already drawing the scale of pay of Superintendent from 18.12.1986 on grade promotion. The petitioner claimed one more grade promotion on completion of 25 years service from W.A. No.2322 of 2007 - 2 - 18.12.1975, i.e. on 18.12.2000. In support of that claim, the petitioner relied on clauses 1 to 3 of Article VIII of the Long Term Settlement concluded on 19.4.1990 between the workmen and management of the K.S.E.Board. The said clauses read as follows: “1. If a workman holding a post does not get a promotion/grade promotion within 10 years' of joining that post, then he will be granted a grade promotion in the normal promotion channel as per practice existing now. 2. If a workman holding a post does not get two promotions/grade promotions within a period of 18 years of joining that post, then he will be granted appropriate number of Grade Promotions so that he gets atleast two promotions/Grade Promotions on completion of 18 years of service in that post. 3. Similarly, if a workman holding a post does not get atleast three Promotions/Grade Promotions within a period of 25 years of joining that post, then he will be granted appropriate number of grade promotions so that he gets atleast three promotions/grade promotions on completion of 25 years of service in that post.”. Thus, as per the terms of the above quoted clauses in the settlement, if a person working in one post does not get three promotions/grade promotions within a period of 25 years, he shall be given necessary promotion/grade promotion to make up W.A. No.2322 of 2007 - 3 - the deficit. The petitioner's claim was rejected stating that he got three promotions/grade promotions after 18.12.1975. He was given grade promotions as Superintendent in 1986 and as Assistant Accounts Officer in 1993 and thereafter a cadre promotion as Superintendent in 1998. So, according to the appellants, the petitioner cannot claim any further benefit on the basis aforementioned settlement, it is contended. In view of the above dispute, the writ petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal. 2. The dispute between the parties is concerning the reckoning of cadre promotion granted to the respondent/writ petitioner in 1998. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, it is only a paper promotion because he was drawing pay in the scale of Superintendent from 1986 onwards and from 1993 he was drawing the salary of the Assistant Accounts Officer. So, the cadre promotion given in 1998 to the post of Superintendent cannot be treated as a promotion at all. But, according to the appellants, it is also a promotion. The terms of the settlement speaks of promotion/grade promotion, and there W.A. No.2322 of 2007 - 4 - is no scope for excluding the cadre promotion, which he got in 1998, it is submitted. 3. We feel that the promotion/grade promotion contemplated under the settlement pre-supposes the placement of the incumbent on a higher scale of pay. That means, within 25 years of service, he should get placement in higher scales of pay at least three times. Clause 3 of Article VIII supports the above view. If a promotion on paper given in 1998 to a post, the scale of pay which was being drawn by the respondent from 1986 onwards, is also to be reckoned as promotion/grade promotion, Clause 3 of Article VIII of the settlement will become meaningless. It is manifestly clear that the intention was to give three levels of promotion and not a paper promotion, as was ordered in 1998. 4. In view of the above position, it is declared that the respondent/petitioner is entitled to get the next grade promotion in the direct line of promotion with effect from 18.12.2000. In view of this relief, the other reliefs regarding stepping up etc. need not be implemented. We are told that all the benefits as per the judgment under appeal have been W.A. No.2322 of 2007 - 5 - released to the respondent/writ petitioner except Rs.9,865/-. In view of the above position, the only further direction required to be issued is to release the amount of Rs.9,865/- to the respondent. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to release the amount of Rs.9,865/- to the respondent/writ petitioner within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)