IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 33028 of 2003(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, ASST. ENGINEER (RETIRED), K.S.E.B., JUNIOR EXECUTIVE STAFF TRAINING CENTRE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT "CHANJULA", P.O. ERANJIKKAL, CALICUT-673 303. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.9.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 33028/03. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.1.87 BY R4. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.24.4.90 OF R1. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.10.94 BY R4. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.9.01 BY R4. P5. COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION DTD.20.4.02. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.24.7.02 BY R4. P7. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.26.2.06 TO R2. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.2.11.02 BY R2. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.33028 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as a Lineman on 12.12.1973. He was promoted as Second Grade Overseer on 23.8.1976. As per the service conditions applicable to the employees of the KSEB, an employee on completing 10 years in a particular post, is entitled to the first higher grade. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted the first higher grade on 23.8.1986 in the scale of pay applicale to the next promotion post viz., that of the First Grade Overseer. While he was continuing so, vacancies of First Grade Overseer arose, the method of recruitment for which was by direct recruitment. Ten per cent of the vacancies was set apart to be filled up from among the employees of the Board. The petitioner applied for selection to the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was selected and appointed as First Grade Overseer on 15.7.1989. While continuing so, he was granted the second higher grade on 23.8.1994 and the third higher grade on 23.8.2001 considering his service as a Second Grade Overseer also. By Ext.P5, an audit objection was raised against the granting of second and third higher grades to the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner was directly recruited through PSC on 15.7.1978, he is not entitled to higher grades based on his previous service. That audit objection was accepted and, by Ext.P6 2 proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, the second and third higher grades were cancelled. Against the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation which was not favourably considered. While so, he retired from service on 31.7.2002. By Ext.P8 order, the pensionary claims of the petitioner were finalised, in which, an amount of Rs.27,481/- was directed to be deducted from his pensionary claims as excess pay and excess earned leave surrender benefit paid, on account of the second and third higher grades, which were cancelled by Ext.P6 order. The petitioner's pensionary benefits were also sanctioned on the revised pay. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P6 in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was working as Higher Grade Second Grade Overseer in the scale of pay applicable to the First Grade Overseer and, therefore, since he was continuing in the same scale of pay, he was entitled to the second and third higher grades also based on his service as Second Grade Overseer. He heavily relies on clauses ii, iv and x of Ext.P2 Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grade promotions applicable to the employees of the KSEB. According to him, going by those provisions, he is entitled to the second and third higher grades also taking into account the fact that he was continuing in the same scale of pay of First Grade Overseer from 23.8.1986 onwards. 3 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner got appointment by direct recruitment through PSC on 15.8.1989 and the petitioner's eligibility for higher grades has to be reckoned with effect from that date only and for that purpose, his earlier service as Second Grade Overseer cannot be counted. It is also pointed out that as per the revised orders, he was given first higher grade in the post of First Grade Overseer with effect from 15.7.1999 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 2.8.2000, which is perfectly in order. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, the impugned orders are perfectly valid and proper, and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Clauses ii, iv, and x in Article VIII regarding grade promotions in the Memorandum of Settlement relied upon by the petitioner read thus: “ii. If a workman holding a post does not get two promotions/grade promotions within a period of 18 years of joining that post, then he will be granted appropriate number of Grade Promotions so that he gets atleast two promotions/Grade promotions on completion of 18 years of service. xxx xxx xxx xxx iv. If any workman recruited under the Board's service does not get atleast two promotions/grade promotions within a period of 18 years from the date of his first entry into the Board's service, then he will (sic) granted appropriate number of grade promotions so that the he gets atleast two promotions/grade promotions on completion of a period of 18 4 years from the date of his first entry into the Board's service. xxx xxx xxx xxx x. While reckoning qualifying service for the purpose of grade Promotions, the entire service rendered by an employee in a particular scale of pay, will be taken into account even if he might have held various designations in the same scale of pay.” 6. I am of opinion that those clauses would become applicable only in respect of a person who continues in various posts in the Electricity Board after the first entry into service. If the petitioner had been continuing in service as a Second Grade Overseer, the contention of the petitioner would have been perfectly valid. But in this case, the petitioner chose to be directly recruited to the post of First Grade Overseer and, therefore, for the purpose of grade promotions, he would start afresh and the service for the purpose of higher grade promotions has to be reckoned only from the date on which he was appointed by direct recruitment as First Grade Overseer, viz., 15.7.1989. Therefore, the second and third higher grades given to him taking into account his service as a Second Grade Overseer also are clearly irregular. That being so, the impugned orders cannot be faulted. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 5