IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 15359 of 1999(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. G.PHILIP, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KAPPUR, KUMARANELLUR, PALAKKAD. 2. K.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PANMANA, DISTRICT KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TOT HE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SHRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.15359/1999 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF ORDER G.O.MS.NO.7/80/AD DATED 08/01/1980 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NOS.3543/86 & 8812/86 DATED 17/12/1986 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P3 : COPY OF ORDER NO.SD4-80065/97 DATED 27/07/1998 OF THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, TVM. P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.SD.4/64041/97 DATED 17/11/97 OF THE DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO 2ND PRESPONDENT DATED 22/12/98. P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/03/1999. P7 : COPY OF LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/1998. P8 : COPY OF GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.35/PRC-A/92/(135)/FIN. DATED 07/07/1992. P9 : COPY OF LETTER NO.SD4-89196/97 DATED 24/09/1998 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT. P10 : COPY OF ORDER NO.SD4.47765/98 DATED 17/05/99 OF THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- O.P. No. 15359 of 1999 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are challenging Ext.P10 order by which the time bound promotions given to them earlier were withdrawn on the ground that such promotions were given under a mistake. Both the petitioners joined as Agricultural Demonstrators Grade-II. Thereafter, they got promotion to the post of Demonstrator Grade-I. Subsequently, in 1987, both the petitioners have become Agricultural Officers from the quota reserved for appointment to that post from Agricultural Demonstrators and Village Extension Officers. After completion of 10 years of service as Agricultural Officers, petitioners were given a time bound promotion in 1997. However, since no pay increase was given, petitioners approached the Government with representation for pay increase. It is at that time and after filing this writ petition, Ext.P10 was issued in the case of first petitioner holding that he was not entitled to time bound promotion. Learned Government Pleader submitted that even though order is not produced, second petitioner was also found ineligible as he was in the same position as that of first petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners O.P.No.15359/1999 -2- are entitled to time bound promotion and consequent pay increase because in the cadre they have completed ten years service by 1997. However, there is no dispute that as per the Rules, time bound promotion is given only to those who stagnated in service. Both petitioners entered service as Agricultural Demonstrators Grade-II and they got two promotions, i.e. from Agricultural Demonstrators Grade-II to Agricultural Demonstrators Grade-I and from Agricultural Demonstrators Grade-I to Agricultural Officers. Therefore, petitioners cannot be said to have been stagnated in the entry cadre to entitle them for Grade Promotion. Since, admittedly, Grade Promotion is available only to those stagnated at the entry cadre, petitioners are rightly found to be ineligible for the Grade Promotion. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg