IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33939 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.P. ALIAR, SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTFICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PULLIKUDIYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VUDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION,KSE BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO:33939 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Jose Matheikel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the fourth respondent. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the “Board” for short. His grievance is that from the month of August 2008 onwards, the sum of Rs.2,690/- is being recovered from salary. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits that the said reduction was effected based on clause II(14)(g) of Article 14 of the long term settlement arrived at between the employees and the Board. The learned standing counsel also submits that salary was reduced in terms of the said settlement not only in the case of the petitioner but in respect of other employees also and that the disputes arising out of such reduction are presently being considered by the Secretary of the Board. 3. It is evident from the materials placed before me that the salary payable to the petitioner was reduced based on the long term settlement. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not the only wpc:33939 of 2008 2 employee whose salary has been reduced based on the long term settlement. As a matter of fact Ext.P5 discloses that the pay of the petitioner and other nine employees was thus reduced. In these circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Board to consider the issue and take a decision thereon after affording the petitioner and the other aggrieved employees an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The entitlement of the petitioner to claim the reduced portion of his salary will depend on the final decision taken in the matter. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps