IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No.278 of 2008 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.2752/2004 Dated 07/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------ B.V.BALAKRISHNAN, EMPLOYMENT OFFICER (RETD) RESIDING AT AMBADY, NETTOOR P.O. ERNAKULAM 682 304. BY ADV. SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LABOUR (G)- DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.278 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J Appellant/petitioner entered service as L.D. Clerk on 14/01/1974. He was promoted as U.D Clerk on 06/01/1982. Again he was promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 28/04/87. While working as Head Clerk, the appellant/ petitioner was promoted/appointed by transfer as Junior Employment Officer on 12/12/88. Again on 29/01/94 he was appointed as the Employment Officer. The contention of the appellant/petitioner is that since promotion and appointment as Employment Officer was an appointment by transfer as per the method of appointment, he is entitled to the increment as per time bound promotion scheme. The W. A. No.278 of 2008 -2- learned Single Judge found that he had more than four promotions in his career and time bound promotions are granted to avoid stagnation. Even though the term used is appointment by transfer as Employment Officer and 'appointment by transfer' as per the rules has to be treated as an entry cadre service, a direct line promotion was given to him as Employment Officer. He became Employment Officer because of his seniority and by selection and he is not entitled to the stagnation benefit after completing eight years of service as an Employment Officer. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge is correct and no interference is required on the same. Appeal fails and is dismissed W. A. No.278 of 2008 -3- accordingly. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-