IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13598 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. DOLY J., D/O. LALITHAMMA, AGED 34, SENIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM (URBAN). 2. JOLY T.L., D/O. LEVI BAI, AGED 34, SENIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF ELECTRIAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM (URBAN). 3. ARUN DUTT S., S/O. SATHEESHCHANDRANATH, AGED 34, SENIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF ELECTRIAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM (URBAN). 4. SREEKUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 35, CASHIER, OFFICER OF ELECTRIAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM (URBAN). BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (HRM) VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. BY SC SRI.K.S. ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13598/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P9 order passed by the Chief Engineer by which the claim made by the petitioners for the fixation of scale of pay from the date on which the petitioners were originally given advice by the PSC, has been rejected. Petitioners' pay has been fixed with effect from the date of their joining duty on the post to which they were appointed. After arguing the case for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.R.T.Pradeep submits that the issue is one on which the Board itself could take a decision and therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to represent the matter before the Board. 2. I heard learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board Mr.K.S.Anil also in this regard. 3. In the circumstances where the issue has an impact on the scale of pay of several persons, it would be appropriate the Board takes a decision in this matter. W.P.(C).13598/2008 2 Ext.P9 does not reflect a consideration by the full Board in this regard. It is a decision taken by the Chief Engineer. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- 5. If the petitioners file a representation pointedly raising their claim within two weeks from today, same shall be placed before the Board and the Board shall take a decision in that regard within a period of three months thereafter. One among the petitioners shall be heard before a decision is taken on the representation. The Board is entitled to take a decision de hors the expression of opinion by the Chief Engineer in Ext.P9. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs