IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 27882 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN ASSARI.N., COACH BUILDER, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 2. P.SREEKANTAN, BLACKSMITH, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 3. G.NELSON, BLACKSMITH, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 4. C.JOHN, BLACKSMITH, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 5. K.KUMARESAN, RETD. COACH BUILDER, LEKSHMI VILASOM, PUTHENVEEDU, BHAGAVATHI NADA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM. 6. N.APPUKUTTAN ASSARI, COACH BUILDER, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 7. P.MONY, BLACKSMITH, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 8. A.ASSANARU, RETD. TYRE RE-TREADER, WINSAL HOUSE, SANTHOSH NAGAR, NEERMANKARA, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. V.RAJAGOPALAN, BLACKSMITH, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 10. R.LAKSHMANAN ASSARI, COACH BUILDER, CENTRAL WORKS, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE. 11. S.RAVEENDRAN, RETD. BLACKSMITH, KUMARI BHAVAN, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. N.VISWAMBHARAN ASSARI, RETD. COACH BUILDER, KEERATHIL VEEDU, KOLIYACOD, POOZHIKUNU, ESTATE P.O., PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(A), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 27882/2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DT. 16.1.2007. EXT.P2 RELEVANT PAGE OF AGREEMENT DT. 13.4.1999. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT DT. 16.3.2007 IN W.P.C.NO. 8874/2007. EXT.P4 MEMORANDUM DT. 26.6.2007. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 27882 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are mechanical staff of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in the posts of Coach Builder, Blacksmith and Tyre Retreader. They are 12 in number. At the time of filing the writ petition in 2007, all of them had already completed 25 years' of service. They are yet to get any promotion and they are stagnating in the original post. During the pendency of the writ petition, all of them retired from service also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they retired from service without getting any promotion. By Ext. P1 order, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation granted higher grade to 7 classes of persons, on completion of 25 years, namely, Tinker, Boiler Operator, Glass Cutter, Welder, Machinist, Moulder and Upholsterer. According to the petitioner, those posts are equivalent posts and there is no reason why the petitioners should not also be granted the very same benefits as in Ext.P 1. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i. To call for the records leading to Ext. P4 and to quash the same by a writ of certiorari. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or writ of similar nature or order or direction commanding the respondents to grant higher grade and to disburse consequential benefits to the petitioners on account of their completion of 25 years of service forthwith. Iii. Issue an appropriate writ declaring that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of higher grade as provided in Ext. P1 and consequential benefits.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents taking the stand that the posts mentioned in Ext. P1 are rare categories without opportunities of promotion and that is why they were granted higher grade on completion of 25 years' of service. It is further W.P.C. No. 27882/2007 -: 2 :- submitted that in Ext. P1 itself, it has also been provided that those categories will not thereafter be eligible for cadre promotion as chargeman. The contention is that the petitioners' case is not similar to those persons mentioned in Ext. P1 insofar as the petitioners have chances to get promotion as chargeman and sufficient number of vacancies have also been provided in the post of chargeman so that the petitioners can also get promotion to the post of chargeman. 2(a). The petitioners contend that the so called promotion mentioned in the counter affidavit is demonstrably totally illusory insofar as all the petitioners have retired from service without getting any promotion. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. It is a fact that in all services under the Kerala Government and the instrumentalities of the Government of Kerala, employees who do not have promotion avenues are provided with time bound higher grade, even if there are promotion posts available to them and there are chances of such promotion. The very same benefit has been granted to 7 categories in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation also by Ext. P1 order. It is not disputed before me that the said 7 categories of posts are equivalent posts as those of the petitioners. The distinction tried to be drawn by the Corporation in their counter affidavit on the basis that those categories are rare categories and the petitioners have avenues of promotion unlike the 7 categories appears to be illusory as rightly pointed by the counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have already retired from service without any promotion. At the time of filing the writ petition in 2007 itself, they had already crossed 25 years of service. As such, I am of opinion that singling out the petitioners for discriminatory treatment and granting time bound higher grade benefits to equivalent cadres are W.P.C. No. 27882/2007 -: 3 :- discriminatory. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits granted to the other similar categories by Ext. P1. Accordingly, Ext. P4 order denying the benefit to the petitioners is quashed. I direct the respondents to extend the benefits of Ext. P1 order to the petitioners also. Orders in this regard shall be passed, arrears paid and retirement benefits of the petitioner revised accordingly, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/