IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10765 of 2006(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.K. THANKARAJ, AGED 54, S/O.THANKAPPAN, J&J RAJ COTTAGE, VELLAMANNOORKONAM, THOONGANPARA, KATTAKKADA.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. (WORKING AS OVERSEER HIGHER GRADE, KSEB SECTION, KATTAKKADA). BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY, SMT.THANKOM.G, SRI.E.M.MURUGAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB, SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB, SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 10765/2006-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.2473/93 DATED 30/12/1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST OF THE OVERSEERS PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04/12/2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/02/2003. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24/03/2003 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/10/2003 SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/08/2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 19/10/1996. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/05/2005 TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY DATED NIL. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/07/2005. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/02/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.10765 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Overseer-Higher Grade) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The petitioner started service as an Electricity Worker and by promotions he became Line Helper, Line Assistant, Senior Line Assistant and as Overseer. While the petitioner was so working as Overseer, the Board created a post of Meter Reader and appointed overseers having the prescribed qualifications as Meter Readers. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that a junior of the petitioner in the cadre of Overseer is drawing higher pay than the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pay in accordance with Ext.P1 Board order. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for records relating to Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 and quash the same holding the same as illegal and amounting to denial of equality and legal right of the petitioner. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to immediately confer W.P.(c)No.10765/06 2 the benefits Ext.P1 board order to the petitioner and step up the salary of the petitioner to give parity to him in the matter of salary with his juniors like Mr.Reghuvaran, who is entry No.2150 in Ext.P2 gradation list. (iii) Allow the petitioner to recover from the 2nd respondent the full costs incurred for the institution and conduct of the writ petition”. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein in paragraphs 5 and 6 it is stated thus: “5. It is submitted that, on verification of the related documents, it is noted that the junior is drawing a higher pay of Rs.2,425/- (Rs.1225-2425) with effect from 18.08.1993 i.e., from the date on which he was promoted as Meter Reader while the petitioner draws Rs.2,195/- on that date. The anomaly has arisen since the junior enjoyed the additional fixation benefit in the post of Meter Reader as compared to the petitioner. After the creation of the intermediary post of Meter Reader an Order (B.O No.PSI/84/88(55) dated 05.10.1990) was subsequently issued by the Board prescribing the qualifications and method of appointment for the post of Meter Readers. The petitioner is not having any of the Trade Certificates mentioned in the said Board order. The Board order dated 30.12.1993 permits junior senior fixation only to those qualified lower category employees who were promoted as Overseers prior to the creation of the post of Meter Reader. 6. It is submitted that, the Board vide B.O No.2473/93 (PSI/1533/93) dated 30.12.1993, permits the benefit of Junior- Senior fixation of pay in the post of Overseer to those qualified lower category employees, who were promoted as Overseers prior to the creation of the intermediary post of Meter reader and who did not get the Rule 28A fixation benefit for the same” 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Going by Ext.P1, the petitioner would be entitled to stepping up of W.P.(c)No.10765/06 3 pay if the junior of the petitioner is drawing higher pay than the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that a junior of the petitioner, who is working as Meter Reader, is drawing higher pay. From the counter affidavit, it is clear that, that junior is drawing higher pay not in the cadre of Overseer but in the cadre of Meter Reader on account of fixation of pay when he was promoted as Meter Reader. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have the qualifications prescribed for appointment as Meter Reader. If he had the qualifications, he would also have been appointed as a Meter Reader in which case he would also have drawn the same salary as that of his junior. Therefore, the situation of the petitioner drawing lesser salary than his junior is not the one contemplated in Ext.P1 Board order, so as to enable the petitioner to be eligible for stepping up of pay in par with his junior. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pay as provided in Ext.P1 Board order. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.10765/06 4 W.P.(c)No.10765/06 5