IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 35702 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. MEERA SAHIB, KOTHUVAL VEEDU, PETTAH, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA FOR R2 MR.K.SUNIL KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.35702/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE / LETTER DATED 30/06/1989. P1(A) : COPY OF PETITIONER'S SSLC P1(B) : COPY OF TRADE CERTIFICATE P1(C) : COPY OF GO(MS) NO.128/83/LA & SWD DATED 13/09/1983. P2 : COPY OF SENIORITY LIST 01/01/1987. P3 : COPY OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER'S LETTER DATED 20/10/1987. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 01/01/1988. P5 : COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.2317/E5/92/HO/KWA DATED 05/05/1992. P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28/05/1990. P7 : COPY OF REPORT DATED 31/01/2001. P8 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 22/12/2006. P9 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17/12/2007 IN WP(C) NO.37219/2007 E. P10 : COPY OF G.O.(Rt.) NO.527/08/WRD DATED 26/05/2008. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.35702 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that on 23/04/1958, he was appointed as a Lascar in PHED, a post falling under category II of Last Grade Services. According to the petitioner, with effect from 01/01/1964, he was promoted as Fitter. While so, the Special Rules for the Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service were implemented with effect from 14/10/1966, and thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Operator with effect from 01/04/1968. 2. He sought retrospectivity to his promotion with effect from 14/10/1966, when the Special Rules were implemented. The departmental authorities recommended that promotion should be given with retrospective effect from 14/10/1966 as per Exts.P3 & P4. He also raised a claim for higher grade on that basis. The claim was considered by the Government and ultimately, by Ext.P10 order dated 26/05/2008, the same was declined. 3. A reading of Ext.P10 order and also the counter affidavits filed by the respondents show that if the petitioner's claim for retrospectivity to his promotion as Operator with effect from WP(C) No.35702/2008 -2- 14/10/1966 is granted, rest of the claims will have to be decided afresh in the light of the same. 4. However, from the counter affidavit what is disclosed is that his claim for retrospectivity for promotion was declined on the basis that while recommending the case as per Exts.P3 & P4, the authorities did not take notice of the fact that the petitioner was not absorbed into regular establishment on that date. It is stated that as on 14/10/1966, the petitioner was working as an establishment Fitter, and was absorbed into Regular Establishment only with effect from 01/04/1968 based on G.O.(P) No.170/69/PW dated 21/10/1969. 5. The petitioner submits that the said G.O. has no relevance in his case, that he was working on regular post, and he was recruited by the Public Service Commission. It is stated that the said G.O. was issued only for absorption of provisional hands and therefore, the premise on which the matter has been appreciated is erroneous. Taking into account this contention, for considering the applicability of this G.O. in the facts of this case, this Court passed interim order dated 19/08/2009 requiring the 1st respondent to place on record, a copy of the Government Order relied on by them in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit. However, the learned WP(C) No.35702/2008 -3- Government Pleader has not produced the same till date. In such circumstances, the only inference possible is that the said G.O. has no relevance in the case of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner also has submitted that similar benefits have been extended to various other employees, who were similarly situated. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner has to be accepted. If so, necessarily, Ext.P10 declining the petitioner's prayer for giving retrospectivity to his promotion with effect from 14/10/1966, as recommended by Exts.P3 & P4, cannot be upheld. Therefore, Ext.P10 deserves to be set aside, and I do so. 7. The respondents are directed to extend to the petitioner higher grade on a notional basis, reckoning his services as Operator with effect from 14/10/1966, as recommended in Exts.P3 & P4, and extend him consequential pensionary benefits. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg