IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14805 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MURALEEDHARAN.T.S.,S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS,SUB ENGINEER (E), ELECTRICAL SECTION,KSEB,VYTTILA, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT,RESIDING AT PARAYIL HOUSE, N.A.D.P.O.,ERANAKULAM,PIN-683563. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.RINOY JOSEPH SMT.G.R.LEKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.),KSEB, VIDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIPUNITHURA DIVISION, KSEB,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14805 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 29th May, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. His grievance is that though he was promoted as Sub Engineer, his pay was reduced when the pay was fixed in implementation of a settlement arrived at in 2007. The petitioner submits that the Kerala State Electricity Board has now issued Ext.P6 circular protecting the pay of promotees as personal pay in order to avoid reduction in pay. He submits that relying on the said circular, he has submitted Ext.P3 representation before the second respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the second respondent to consider the request made by him in Ext.P3 representation in the light of Ext.P6 circular issued by the Board and to take a decision thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. The pleadings disclose that the pay of the petitioner stood reduced when the settlement arrived at in the year 2007 was WP(C).No.14805/2009 2 implemented. The Board has issued Ext.P6 circular to rectify the said anomaly. I am therefore of the opinion that the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation merits consideration at the hands of the second respondent. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation in the light of Ext.P6 circular and take a decision thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It will be open to the second respondent if he feels it necessary, to hear the petitioner in person before passing orders as directed above. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS