IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5774 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- OMANA AMMA, W/O.LATE M.K.BHASKARAN PILLA AGED 62 YEARS, MANAKKARA VEEDU, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPPE P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ANIL - STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5774, 5782 & 5833 of 2008 ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Common issues arise in these writ petitions and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to W.P.(C)No.5774/08 for the sake of convenience. W.P.(C)No.5774/08 2. Petitioner's husband late M.K.Bhaskaran Pillai Was working as Assistant Store Keeper in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board {for short “the Board”}. On completion of 10 years service, he was given a Grade Promotion and his pay was fixed in the scale of pay applicable to the next Grade - Store Keeper Grade II. On completion of 25 years of service, another grade promotion was given and the pay was fixed in the scale of pay applicable to Store Keeper Grade I. By virtue of a long term settlement Ext.P1, Assistant Store Keepers were integrated with Senior Assistants. It seems that Bhaskaran Pillai did not agree to the integration of the post of Assistant Store Keeper and Senior Assistant, because he had already been granted grade W.P.(C).NO.5774/08 & Con.cases :: 2 :: promotions by virtue of his length of service. Nevertheless, he and similarly situated persons were subjected to integration as per Ext.P1. It was found that consequent upon such integration, the incumbent was brought down to a lower time scale of pay. This was challenged by Bhaskaran Pillai and others before this court which led to Ext.P3 judgment, wherein the Board was directed to reconsider the case of Bhaskaran Pillai and similarly situated persons with reference to the higher grade he was drawing prior to the integration and then to equate him with appropriate post in the ministerial cadre. Ext.P3 judgment in this regard was affirmed in Ext.P4. 3. Apparently, litigation did not end there, inasmuch as that, the direction in Exts.P3 and P4 were not fully carried out on the premise that, earlier Assistant Store Keepers did not have the qualification to be considered for integration to any higher post. The order passed in this regard was again challenged before this court by certain other persons. This led to Ext.P5 judgment. In the meanwhile Bhaskaran Pillai had passed away. It is, therefore, that his widow could not immediately pursue the matter. Therefore, she filed Ext.P6 representation pointing out these aspects and claimed the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment. Since W.P.(C).NO.5774/08 & Con.cases :: 3 :: action has not been taken on Ext.P6, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Similar facts are involved in the other two writ petitions. 5. In my view, the question as to whether the posts, which were being occupied by the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.5782 & 5833/08 and by the husband of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5774/08, could be integrated to the higher post on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments had to be considered, de hors the issue of 'qualification', as has been held by this court in Ext.P5 judgment. If, therefore, the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.5782 & 5833/08 and by the husband of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5774/08, are similarly situated to that of the petitioners in Ext.P5 judgment, they are entitled to similar treatment. 6. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board Sri.K.S.Anil submits that the claim made in these cases are belated. Normally, I would have appreciated this contention and possibly would have accepted it also. But, I take note of the fact that the claimants are senior citizens and retired persons. May be, for several constraints they did not approach this court earlier. Moreover, they are only claiming a benefit, which has W.P.(C).NO.5774/08 & Con.cases :: 4 :: been granted to person, who, according to them are similarly situated as per Ext.P5 judgment. In such circumstances, the Board may look into the claim made by the petitioners. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation in W.P.(C)Nos.5774 & 5833/08 and Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.5782, in the light of Ext.P5 judgment and take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge