IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9017 of 2006(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.X. SEBASTIAN, DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR (RETD.), VADAKKUMTHALA, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.CHERIAN VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND F.W. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. T.K. VIPIN DAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9017/2006-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP DTD. 08/04/87. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 19/04/2002 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.390/HEALTH DTD.24/11/1970. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DTD. 19/04/1974 OF SRI. K. BALAKRISHNA KURUP. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 04/05/1974 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 25/08/1977 BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6.A: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 29/10/85 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6.B: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 20/06/1986 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6.C: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 11/11/86 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/07/05 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/12/05 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. EXT.P.9.A: -DO- -DO-. EXT.P.9.B: -DO- -DO- EXT.P.9.C: -DO- -DO-. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- WPC. No.9017 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 7th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who retired as District Food Inspector in the Health & FW(C) Department, preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the denial of notional promotion to the post of District Health Educational Officer in the ex-cadre line or to the higher posts in the direct line of promotion. It is also prayed for a declaration that he is entitled to be promoted notionally to the post of District Health Educational Officer with effect from 19.4.1974 with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary. The third prayer is for a direction to the respondents to notionally promote and post the petitioner to the post of District Health Educational Officer with retrospective effect from 19.4.1974 with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary in the light of the finalised seniority list Ext.P8. wpc 9017/06 -:2:- 2. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Health Inspector Grade II, a vacancy of District Health Educational Officer was occurred, to which, as per Ext.P4 order dated 19.4.74, one K.Balakrishna Kurup who was working as Health Inspector Gr-II was promoted. However, Ext.P3 is the method of appointment and the qualification for the post. Thus as per Ext.P3, out of 9 posts of District Health Education Officers created, 3 posts were formed by re-designation of the posts of Regional Health Education Officers. The remaining 6 posts were filled up by method of transfer and direct recruitment as envisaged in Ext.P3. Aggrieved by the promotion given to the said Balakrishna Kurup, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation on 4.5.74 itself. One thing is beyond dispute that the said Balakrishna Kurup is very junior to the petitioner. 3. The Government in their counter affidavit itself, it is stated that as per the revised seniority list, the wpc 9017/06 -:3:- rank number of the petitioner is 280 whereas rank number of Bakakrishna Kurup is 329. Exts.P6 to P6(c) replies given by the various authorities to the petitioner would show that the seniority list was under preparation and on finalisation of the same, the petitioner would be given appropriate order. 4. But the finalisation of the seniority list was done by taking substantially a good period. However, from the counter affidavit, filed by the first respondent Government, it is seen that to the post of District Health Education Officer, the petitioner was promoted with effect form 21.6.1983 whereas the said Balakrishna Kurup was promoted with effect from 1.3.86 only. 5. Going by the averments contained in the writ petition and also the materials produced before this court, it can be seen that the petitioner was virtually agitating and prosecuting his grievance, right from Ext.P4 order by which promotion was given to his junior, Balakrishna Kurup to the post of District Health Education wpc 9017/06 -:4:- Officer. Neither in the counter affidavit nor in the document relied on by the Ist respondent, there is any mention as to when the promotion was given to the said Balakrishna Kurup to the post of District Health Education Officer. As per Ext.P8, the Department has stated that their pay will be fixed notionally and their pensionary benefits will be revised accordingly. In the present case, the petitioner approached this court by preferring this writ petition on 24.3.2006 and he had retired from service on 31.3.86, but so far his clam is not properly considered and settled. The petitioner has produced Ext.P10 representation addressed to the Director of Health Services. As the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.86 and thereafter 13 years are over, the grievance is yet to be considered and a final decision has to be taken. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to approach the Ist respondent by filing a detailed representation setting forth his grievance and claim wpc 9017/06 -:5:- with respect to the notional benefit, which will be considered by the Government expeditiously, especially, in the light of the fact that the petitioner has retired from service 13 years back. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Ist respondent setting forth his contentions and claim for notional promotion and benefits and the petitioner's representation shall be disposed of by the Government within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioner. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- wpc 9017/06 -:6:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..