IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1914 of 2010 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32925/2010 Dated 29/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- C.MOHANA CHANDRA PILLAI HOUSE NO.45/1,PRASADAM BUILDING MANGOT APARTMENT, POST GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (WAS WORKING AS OVERSEER(ELECTRICAL)AT K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL SECTION,GURUVAYOOR) BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.P.M.SAJI SRI.SAJU S.POONTHODATHU SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B.,GURUVAYOOR, POST GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSL SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1914 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. Whether the appellant who was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board is entitled to continue till 31st of the next March even after attaining the age of superannuation of 55 years by virtue of the amendment to Rule 60(a) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules is the issue involved in this writ appeal. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition as well as the writ appeal shows that the appellant approached this Court seeking a direction to continue till 31st of March, 2011 placing reliance on Ext.P4 Government Order whereby the Government pursuant to an amendment to the Rule as aforesaid directed the autonomous bodies referred to therein to adopt their own decision. Referring to the contents of Ext.P6 scheme it was contended that the appellant was liable to be treated as a government employee and in W.A.No.1914 of 2010 - 2 - the said circumstance he ought to have been permitted to continue till 31.3.2011 by virtue of the amendment to the Rule as above. 3. It is not in dispute that the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Electricity Board were being dealt with and considered on adoption of the Kerala Service Rules and the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules by the Board, by virtue of relevant Board Orders. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext.P2 in this regard making it clear that the Kerala Service Rules and the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules will be made applicable to the employees of the Board subject to the amendments as and when made. By virtue of the above position, it was contended that the stand taken by the Board to deny the benefit of the amendment to the employees of the Board was without any rhyme or reason and hence sought to be intercepted by this Court. 4. After taking note of the factual and legal position and also observing that the issue had already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in Muraleedharan Nair.K. and others v. State of Kerala and others (2010 (1) KHC 20) W.A.No.1914 of 2010 - 3 - it was held that the matter was squarely covered against the petitioner. Accordingly, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed; which forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that by virtue of clause 5(6) of Ext.P6 Scheme the appellant has already become a government employee and as such the benefit of the amendment ought to have been extended to the appellant as well. Going by the contents of Ext.P6 it is very much relevant to note that such a Scheme was promulgated by the Government with reference to the steps being taken to form a Company and to vest the properties along with the liabilities as well as the employees in the Company. Till appropriate steps/modifications were made in this regard, a legal fiction was created by virtue of the aforesaid provision, deeming the concerned employees to be considered as employees of the Government. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, with reference to clause 2(e) of Ext.P6, as to the 'date of transfer' to be notified by the Government, as referred to in the W.A.No.1914 of 2010 - 4 - aforesaid clause 5(6). 6. With regard to the nature and extent of the contentions raised, it is to be noted that the Board has already considered the matter, especially in view of the observation made by the Government in Ext.P4 Government Order and Ext.P5 order was issued on 26.5.2009 making it clear that the amendment cannot be implemented in the Board for the reasons stated therein. It was in the said circumstances that the same was sought to be challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.14502 of 2009 before this Court. Pursuant to the direction of this Court as per the judgment dated 30.7.2009 in W.P.(C) No.14502 of 2009, the matter was considered by the Government leading to issuance of Ext.P8 Government order dated 18.9.2009, whereby it has been categorically stated that the benefit of the amendment cannot be extended to the employees of the Electricity Board. It is also revealed from the proceedings on record that the matter was again considered by the Board and placing reliance on the aforesaid Government Order dated 24.4.2009 a decision was taken by the Board on 22.9.2009 as borne by Ext.P9(b) W.A.No.1914 of 2010 - 5 - making the position crystal clear that Rule 60(a) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules is not applicable to the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The matter was also considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair's case (supra). We are in full agreement with the reasoning given therein. No interference is warranted. Writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns