IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No.32176 of 2000(E) ------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. N.P. SREEKARA SHENOY, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RETD.) H.No.35/2094 - “SHREYAS”, VYLASSERY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 25. 2. P.C. JOSE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.) PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, MAJOR ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 19. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN - 11. 4. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MINICIPALITY, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 32176/2000 Order on C.M.P.No.54776/2000 in OP.No.32176/2000 Order on C.M.P.No.39136/2002 in OP.No.32176/2000 Dismissed. 16.12.2008 Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1(a) : COPY OF the RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF SRI. S. RADHAKRISHNAN. EXT. P1(b) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF SRI. S. RADHAKRISHNAN. EXT. P2 : COPY OF ORDER DT. 27.5.1993 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DT. 8.11.1999 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DT. 10.2.2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF LETTER DT. 31.3.1998 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT. P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 21.11.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 25.8.2000 SUBMITTED -DO - -DO- EXT. P8 : COPY OF LETTER DT. 26.4.2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P9 : COPY OF LETTER DT. 15.7.2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.32176 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are retired employees of the Municipal Common Service. The 1st petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1997 while holding the post of Asst. Engineer and the 2nd petitioner retired from service on 30.4.1998 while holding the post of Asst. Executive Engineer. Their grievance in this original petition is that they have not been paid 3rd time bound higher grade promotion on completion of 25 years of service. They, therefore seek the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibits P5 and P8; (ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the 3 rd higher grade on completion of 25 years service under the Time Bound Higher Grade Scheme brought into force by the 1 st respondent; (iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioners after granting them the benefit of the 3 rd time bound higher grade and to effect consequential revisions in the pensionary benefits due to the petitioners, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible”. O.P.No.32176/2000 2 The petitioners contend that the juniors of the petitioners have been granted 3rd higher grade while the petitioners have not been. 2. A counter affidavit has been field by respondents 1 and 2 in which it is stated that as per the G.O.(P) No.480/89/Fin. Dated 1.11.1989 employees who were granted promotion to higher grade post three times are not eligible to get the 25 year time bound higher grade. According to respondents 1 and 2 both the petitioners enjoyed three promotions to higher grades and therefore, they are not entitled to 25 year higher grade. As regards the contention of the petitioners that their juniors were given 25 year higher grade, the contention in the counter affidavit is that those persons mentioned by the petitioners were employees, who got only two promotions to higher posts and that is why they became eligible to time bound higher grade promotions. 3. The fact that the petitioners had in fact got three promotions is not denied before me. That being so, in view of G.O.(P) No. 480/89/Fin. dated 1.11.1989, the petitioners are not entitled to 25 year higher grade. They also have no case that the persons mentioned in the original petition are persons, O.P.No.32176/2000 3 who got three promotions to higher posts as in the case of the petitioners. That being so, the case of the persons mentioned in the original petition is not identical to that of the petitioners. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.32176/2000 4