IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30074 of 2008(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. VENUGOPALAN POTTY, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRIDGES SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM. 2. P.SOLOMON, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.BY PASS SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM. 3. B.SATHY DEVI, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.QUALITY CONTROL SUB DIVISION, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. 4. MOHAMMED SHERIFF, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.BYE PASS SUB DIVISION, KOVALAM. 5. VISWAN BINDEH, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD KP SUB DIVISION, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. 6. USHA KUMARI V.N., ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.W.D. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.30074 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are Assistant Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department. They were appointed during the years 1981 and 1982. Till GO (MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996 was issued, the categories of posts in the Public Works Department Engineering Service were Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer. By the aforesaid Government order, two new grades namely, Special Grade Assistant Executive Engineer and Special Grade Executive Engineer were added. Pursuant to the said Government order, 13 Executive Engineers were promoted as Special Grade Executive Engineers. G.O. (MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996 was challenged in O.P.No.23889 of 2001 on the ground that as a result of the introduction of the seven tier system, the State will have to incur an additional expenditure of Rs.100 crores. Though this Court repeatedly directed the State to disclose the financial implications of GO (MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996, that was not done. Later, orders were issued directing the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department and the Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against them. Thereupon a counter affidavit was filed WP(C) 30074/08 -: 2 :- stating that the Government have taken a decision to withdraw G.O.(MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996 and that as per the said decision, those who have already been promoted to the Special Grades will not be reverted. In the light of the said statement, O.P.No.23889 of 2001 was closed. G.O. (MS) No.54/03/PWD dated 7.10.2003 (Ext.P1) was thereafter issued. The petitioners submit that seeking re-introduction of the seven tier system introduced as per G.O.(MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996 they have submitted Ext.P2 representation to the Government. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to reintroduce the seven tier system. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to consider Ext.P2 and pass orders thereon. The introduction of the seven tier system was challenged in this Court in O.P.No.23889 of 2001. Taking note of the said fact, the Government took a decision pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet to withdraw the seven tier system introduced as per G.O.(MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996. This was done some time in February, 2003. When the petitioners entered service, only the five tier system was in force. It was only in 1996 that the seven tier system was introduced and it was also later withdrawn. It cannot therefore be said that by withdrawing the seven tier system, the vested rights of the petitioners have been taken away. 3. In these circumstances, the first relief sought for by the WP(C) 30074/08 -: 3 :- petitioner cannot be granted. For the same reason, the second relief sought for also cannot be granted. The petitioners cannot more than five years after Ext.P1 order was issued, withdrawing the seven tier system, seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to consider their request to reintroduce the seven tier system that was withdrawn as per Ext.P1. This Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 28/10