IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24619 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. V. THULASEEDHARAN, MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, PERZHUMPARA HOUSE, AREEKKAVU, VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (WORKING AS SUB ENGINEER, GENERATION DIVISIION, KAKKAD). 2. M.R. RAM MOHAN, MAKKAPATHALLIL HOUSE, VENKURINJI..P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (WORKING AS SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VECHOOCHIRA) 3. JUSTIN FERNADEZ.A, QUARTER NO.F3, 110 KV SUB STATION, KAVANAD.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (WORKING AS SUB ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KOLLAM) 4. T.T. GEORGE KUTTY, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOORVAMKUZHI.P.O, KOORATTY, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (WORKING AS SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, RANNI NORTH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT) 5. THAHA KUNJU.A, KADHEEJA MANZIL, KAMBALADI, POORUVAZHI.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT (WORKING AS SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KADAMBANAD, ADOOR DIVISION) 6. RAJAN PILLAI.C, ELANJIVELIL VEEDU, PUTHENCHANDA.P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. WORKING AS SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN svs .........2/-.... ...2... WPC.NO.24619/2011 RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004. BY ADV. SRI. K.S.ANIL, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 24619/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 25/01/2011. P2: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01/02/2011. P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 01/02/2011. P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 10/02/2011. P5: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 31/01/2011. P6: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2011, SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE FIRST PETITIONER AND SRI.AMRUTHALAL M.G. P7(a):COPY OF THE PAY-IN-SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2011, SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE FIRST PETITIONER AND SRI.AMRUTHALAL M.G. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB8/LM/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB8/LM/18/2011 DATED 17/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LONG TERM SETTLEMENT 2007 ARTICLE IV CLAUSE B II (i). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 24619 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd September, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Sub Engineers in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board ('KSEB' for short). They have filed this writ petition complaining that their juniors who are also working as Sub Engineers are being paid higher salaries, as evidenced by Ext.P7. Though they had submitted Exts.P1 to P6 requests to the second respondent seeking rectification of the anomaly, their requests were rejected as per Exts.P8 and P9. 2. Counsel for the petitioners relies on the dictum in the decision of the Apex Court in Gurucharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board {(2009) 3 SCC 94} to contend that a junior cannot draw salary in excess of what a senior is drawing. It is also pointed out that the scale of pay of the petitioners would have to be brought on par with the juniors. 3. The standing counsel who appears for the KSEB admits that there is a difference in the pay drawn by the petitioners and their juniors, though they are all working as Sub Engineers. The anomaly has occurred because of the different posts from which WPC 24619/2011 2 they were promoted to the common cadre of Sub Engineers. He submits that if a proper representation is made by the petitioners producing a copy of the judgment of the Apex Court that is relied upon, the matter would be reconsidered by the second respondent. 4. In the light of the above submission, this writ petition can be disposed of directing a fresh consideration of the grievances of the petitioners. 5. Accordingly if the petitioners submit fresh representations detailing their grievances, with all supporting materials to the second respondent within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent shall consider such representations in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners also. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 24619/2011 3