IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 19399 of 2005(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- C.AJAYAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, K.G.DIVISION, KAKKYAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.M.BENNY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GENERATION CIRCLE, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19399/2005 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE B.O.NO.460/01/ PS1/OPR/2000 DTD. 23/02/2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF FIXATION STATEMENT DTD. 30/03/01 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY FIXATION STATEMENT DTD. 30/03/01 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S JUNIOR. EXT.P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/01/05 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT.I-1416/2005 DTD. 1/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DTD. 19/10/1996. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19399 of 2005-H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was recruited on the advice of the P.S.C to the post of Sub Engineer on 18/07/1989. Later, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the 10% quota, ear-marked for the lower categories on 26/03/1996. His junior Hareeshan Mottammel was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 31/07/1996 Whileso, pay revision was introduced in the K.S.E.B as per Ext.P1 Board order dated 23/02/2001 with effect from 01/07/1998. On implementation of that pay revision, his junior Hareeshan Mottammel started drawing higher pay from 01/07/1998. So the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation claiming rectification of that anomaly as provided under Para 6(ii) under the heading, “C. Rules of Pay Fixation” of Ext.P1 Board Order. But his representation was rejected by Ext.P5 on the ground that the entry cadre of the junior and senior are different. Challenging Ext.P5 and seeking consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C).No.19399/2005-H -: 2 :- 2. According to the petitioner, in view of para 6(ii) of the order mentioned above, he is entitled to get stepping up of pay. But the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that stepping up cannot be granted relying on the very same reason stated in Ext.P5. They also submitted that the provisions of para.7 are applicable in this case. Reliance was also placed on Annexure R1 order which deals with stepping up of pay on promotion from one category to a higher category. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Para.6 of Ext.P1 reads as follows:- “6.(i) The next increment in the revised scale will be given on the date on which the normal increment falls due in the pre-revised scale. 6.(ii) If an officer draws his next increment in the revised scale under sub clause(i) above, and thereby becomes eligible for higher pay than his senior whose next increment falls due at a later date, the pay of such senior will be re-fixed equal to the pay of the junior from the date on which the junior becomes entitled to higher pay. 6.(iii) In cases where the pay of an officer is stepped up in terms of sub-clause (ii) above, the next increment will be granted after completing the requisite qualifying service for the next increment.” 4. The clause relied on by the respondents, namely, para.7 (under C.Pay Fixation) reads as follows:- W.P.(C).No.19399/2005-H -: 3 :- “7. In cases where a senior promoted to higher post/granted grade promotion before 01/07/1998 draws lesser pay in the revised scale than his junior promoted to the higher post/granted grade promotion after the said date, the pay of the senior officer will be stepped up to the level of the pay of the junior with effect from the date on which the junior draws more pay provided that: (i) The senior and the junior officers should belong to the same category and should have been promoted to the same category of posts. (ii) The pre-revised and revised scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. (iii) The senior at the time of promotion/grade promotion has been drawing equal or more pay than the junior. (iv) The anomaly would have arisen directly as a result of the introduction of the revised scale of pay.” The relevant clause in Ext.R1 are identical to those in para.7 quoted above. 5. If the petitioners and his junior belong to same category and if they were promoted to another common post and, while fixing pay in the promoted post, if the junior starts drawing higher pay, then the provisions in para.7 quoted above and the identical provisions contained in Ext.R1 will apply. In this case, they were remaining in the category of Assistant Engineer even after the introduction of the pay revision. The petitioner was drawing W.P.(C).No.19399/2005-H -: 4 :- higher pay. But after the introduction of the pay revision, his junior started drawing higher pay though both of them remained in the same category of Assistant Engineer. So the provisions more appropriate to the case of the petitioner are those contained in para.6 and not those in para.7 or Ext.R1. In view of the above position, Ext.P5 is quashed. Respondents are directed to step up the pay of the petitioner in terms of para.6 quoted above with effect from the date his junior started drawing higher pay subject to relevant rules within two months from the date of production of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ms