IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 16979 of 2000(U) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.S.VISWAMBHARAN, ANITHA NIVAS, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KSEB, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DY. CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE, KSEB, ALAPPUZHA. 3. EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. 4. ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KUTHIATHODE P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. 5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R.1 TO 5 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON 29/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 16979/2000. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.11.2.94. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R5. P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.7.5.92 BY R5. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.5.92 BY R4. P5. COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DTD.1.9.94 TO R5. P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.1.1.96 TO R1. P7. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.7.10.96 BY R1. P8. COPY OF THE ENVELOPE SENT BACK UNCLAIMED. P9. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.3.2.97. P10. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO R4. P11. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.27.5.99 BY R4 TO THE CONVENOR, NEETHIMELA. P12. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.27.5.2000 TO R4. P13. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.6.8.08. P14. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.8.94. P15. COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.16.2.93. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE FORMAT REGARDING INCENTIVE ALLOWANCE. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 16979 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T A very dismal practice followed by the Kerala State Electricity Board in the matter of payment of incentive to Junior Line Assistants and Line Assistants for the extra work done by them comes to light in this original petition. For each Junior Line Assistant and Line Assistant norms have been fixed for each day's work. If the particular Junior Line Assistant/Line Assistant works in excess of the norms so prescribed, he is entitled to an incentive. The petitioner has filed this original petition with a complaint that he has not been paid incentive for the period from August, 1990 to July 1994. According to him, Exts.P3 and P5 contain the statements regarding the number of consumers and street lights attended to by the petitioner for the relevant period, which would show that the petitioner has become eligible for the incentive for extra work done. The petitioner would contend that the concerned Assistant Engineer, by Ext.P9, certified Exts.P3 and P5. The petitioner, therefore, submits that he is entitled to the incentive claimed as per Exts.P3 and P5 as certified in Exts.P4 and P9. 2. A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed by the Electricity Board disputing the claim of the petitioner. o.p.16979/00 2 Since all what the petitioner has produced before me in support of his claim for incentive are self-serving statements, the authenticity of which has been verified by the concerned Assistant Engineer without the help of any records maintained for the purpose, I directed both parties to inform this Court as to the procedure followed in the Electricity Board for deciding as to whether a particular Junior Line Assistant/Line Assistant has done work in excess of the norms approved. All what the Electricity Board could supply is only a complaint register maintained in the particular Electrical Section Office. That is a register whereby a complaint by a particular consumer is recorded wherein a Junior Line Assistant or Line Assistant would simply endorse that the complaint has been attended to. A specimen of such register has been placed before me by the counsel for the Electricity Board for perusal. That does not contain any verification of any superior officer except an endorsement by the employee himself that he has attended to the work. The explanation by counsel that if it is not attended to, the consumer would complain, does not appear convincing. All the consumer can do is to register his complaint again the next day also which also the employee can endorse as attended to. Therefore, without a proper procedure for verifying the same by a superior officer the endorsement by the employee by itself cannot be taken as the basis of paying incentive. As such, it is abundantly clear o.p.16979/00 3 that the Electricity Board does not have any established procedure for ascertaining with any amount of certainty as to whether the claim by a particular Junior Line Assistant or Line Assistant for incentive is genuine or not. That is why I have in the beginning of this judgment termed the situation as very dismal. Going by the procedure which has been presented before me the particular Junior Line Assistant or Line Assistant would simply place a statement regarding the work done by him in excess of the norms approved, before the Assistant Engineer. The Assistant Engineer would simply attest the same as genuine. The Electricity Board has not been able to place before me any material to show that there is any record maintained by the Electricity Board for the purpose of ascertaining whether the claim of the particular Junior Line Assistant or Line Assistant is correct and whether he has in fact actually attended to the additional work as claimed by him. This is very evident from the two statements now produced before me by the petitioner as Exts.P3 and P5. Part of the period covered by Exts.P3 and P5 overlaps. In Ext.P3 for the month of November, 1990 the number of consumers attended to by him is 944. In Ext.P5 for the same period the number is 943. For the period 12/90 it is 952 in Ext.P3 and 953 in Ext.P5. For January, 91, in Ext.P3 it is 969, whereas in Ext.P5 it is 966. For February 1991 it is 987 in Ext.P3 whereas it is 972 in Ext.P5. For March, 1991 it is 987 in Ext.P3 and o.p.16979/00 4 980 in Ext.P5. For April 1991 it is is 999 in Ext.P3 whereas it is 992 in Ext.P5. Similar discrepancies are there in other entries also. That itself would show that even the petitioner himself did not have any basic records to prove those statements. The number of consumers the petitioner had attended to for each month would be the same whenever it is prepared. It would not differ if the same are based on some authentic records. Now in spite of the difference between Exts.P3 and P5, the Assistant Engineer has sought to attest the same as correct in Exts.P4 and P9. As I have already stated, it is anybody's guess as to how the Assistant Engineer has certified the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner. If this is the way the Electricity Board conducts their business I am of opinion that the poor consumers of this country will have to go on shelling out more and more money for the electricity consumed by them as and when tariff is increased from time to time. This is nothing but pure mismanagement. As such, I am of opinion that it is high time that the Kerala State Electricity Board pulls up their socks to lay down definite procedure wherein the claim of the Junior Line Assistant and Line Assistant can be verified with reference to the authentic records verified by superior officers which are sadly lacking presently. Without laying down such procedure no incentive shall be sanctioned to any Junior Line Assistant and Line Assistant as is being done hitherto. o.p.16979/00 5 3. The above discussion would, without any doubt whatsoever, show that on the basis of the documents now produced before me by the petitioner, his claim for incentive cannot be allowed with any amount of certainty. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================= O.P.No. 16979 of 2000-U ================= J U D G M E N T 29th January, 2009