IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10170 of 2009(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.GOPINATHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.UNNAMAN P.V., KARUVATHI HOUSE, KATTILANGADI STREET, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (EX-OPERATOR (HG), P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TIRUR). BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10170/2009-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E-162/84 VOL.III DTD. 03/01/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E-235/87 VOL.II DTD. 18/01/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 695251 DTD. 22/08/2007. EXT.P.4; COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E-162/84 VOL.III DTD. 01/01/2009 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E-235/87 VOL.III DTD. 21/01/2009 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 162/84 DTD. 27/02/2009 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 11/04/07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE RAO AS PER CIRCULAR NO. 95/97/FIN/16/12/97. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.622/2003/FIN. DTD. 26/11/2003. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.10170 OF 2009 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T After rendering 7 years military service, petitioner joined in the service of the Water Authority as Operator, on a provisional basis from 7.12.1983. His service was regularized with effect from 19.9.1990 and retired from service on 31.10.2003. In this writ petition, the complaint of the petitioner is regarding the non- implementation of Ext.P6 granting higher grades as recommended therein. 2. Ext.P6 is a communication issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer, recommending grant of higher grade to the petitioner from 22.1.2008, which is stated to be the date of refund of mustering out concession. Petitioner submits that the mustering out concession was refunded by the petitioner on 22.8.2007 and he refers to Ext.P3 in support of this contention. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to Exts.R1(b) and R1(c). According to the learned counsel, the time bound higher grade is admissible to a pensioner with military WPC.No.10170 /09 :2 : service only with effect from the date on which the mustering out concession was refunded. Ext.R1(b) circular was relied on to support this contention. She also contends that in terms of Ext.R1 (c) circular, only one higher grade is admissible. 4. As already seen, non-implementation of Ext.P6 where higher grade is recommended to be given to the petitioner is what is complained of. No final decision on the claim is seen to have been taken. Necessarily, a decision has to be taken, duly adverting to Ext.P3 relied on by the petitioner to show that the mustering out concession was refunded by him on 22.8.2007 and in the light of Ext.R1(b) and Ext.R1(c) circulars referred to above. 5. Having regard to the case of the petitioner that the matter is still pending consideration of the respondents, it is directed that on the production of a copy of the judgment the claim of the petitioner will be forwarded to the first respondent, who on receipt thereon, shall take a final decision on the claims of the petitioner. This shall be done by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months of receipt thereon. Needless to say once such orders are passed, consequential orders will also be passed without any delay in the WPC.No.10170 /09 :3 : matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/