IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 975 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25689/2006 Dated 07/01/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- V.GEORGE JOSEPH, RETIRED CHECKING INSPECTOR, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, RESIDING AT VELEEPARAMBIL HOUSE, POORAKULAM, CHATHANAD JUNCTION, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA – 688 006. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE WORKS MANAGER, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DOCK AND REPAIR DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 975 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 19th March, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings, as per which the higher grade granted to the appellant and others has been cancelled without notice or hearing to them and steps were taken to recover the excess amount paid to them. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was working as Boat Master in the State Water Transport Department. On completion of 23 years of service, he is entitled to get time bound higher grade. When the said benefit was not granted, he approached this Court along with others and this Court by Ext.P1 judgment, directed consideration of their claim. Their claim was considered and they were granted higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.6500 – 10550, as per Ext.P2 proceedings. WA 975/2008 2 Later, the competent authority realised that only those who are qualified for promotion are entitled to get the scale of pay of the promotion post, namely, Traffic Superintendent. Otherwise, they are entitled to get only the next scale of pay in the standard scales of pay prescribed as per the pay revision order. Consequently, by Ext.P3 proceedings, Ext.P2 was modified. Ext.P4 consequential order was also issued, directing recovery of the excess amount paid. The appellant challenged the said proceedings before this Court. But, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. 3. The main ground of attack against Exts.P3 and P4 is that they were issued without issuing notice to the appellant or hearing him. But, it is not in dispute that the appellant was not qualified for promotion. If that be so, we find nothing wrong with the correction of the mistake committed by the competent authority. Even if notice was issued, the appellant could not have urged any valid ground to resist the proposal. In other words, such a procedure will only be an empty formality, resulting in wastage of time and energy of the appellant and also of the respondents. In view of the above WA 975/2008 3 position, the appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, AJUDGE. nm/