IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29106 of 2006(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.S.AMMINI, (RETIRED JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT AND ESTATE MANAGER SIDCO), CHERULIL HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIDCO LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.29106/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.VIG/14067/01 DATED 27.6.2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2004 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.1.2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.8.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 29106 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2002 as a Junior Superintendent under the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to such promotion with effect from 1.9.1996. But the petitioner was not given that promotion due to her, since the seniority position was not finalised as among Junior Superintendents. The petitioner therefore filed O.P.No. 14668/1992, in which, by judgment dated 1.8.2000, a Division Bench of this Court directed the 1st respondent to take a decision in the matter of seniority and pass fresh the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. But, the 1st respondent did not comply with the directions in that judgment in time. It was done only by Ext.P1 dated 27.6.2003. Still, the petitioner was not given the promotion due. Other persons filed two writ petitions, viz. W.P (C) Nos 25202 and 31376 of 2003. In those writ petitions, this Court granted stay of further promotions. Those writ petitions were disposed of directing rectification of anomaly in the revised seniority list. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 order was passed on 18.8.2006, as per which the date of promotion of 22 employees including the petitioner was fixed as per which the petitioner was granted promotion with effect from 13.2.1996. But, in Ext.P4 it was specifically directed that the incumbents are not eligible for back arrears consequent on such retrospective promotion. By that time, the petitioner had already retired from W.P(C) No. 29106 of 2006 -: 2 :- service on 31.12.2002. Therefore, the petitioner only received retirement benefits based on that promotion. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the stipulation in Ext.P4 that the incumbents are not eligible for back arrears consequent on the promotion; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 76,390/- as monitory benefits consequent on her promotion through Ext.P4 as Senior Superintendent with effect from 13.2.1996 as early as possible.” 2. A statement has been filed by the respondents, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner has not worked in the promoted post of Senior Superintendent, which promotion entailed change of duties. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of salary, is the contention raised. According to them, they could not finalise the promotions only because of the stay granted by this Court in W.P(C) No. 25202 and 31376 of 2003 respectively. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been fighting for seniority and eligible promotion from 1992 onwards and she obtained the judgment dated 1.8.2000 in O.P.No. 14668/1992, wherein, there was a direction to finalise the matter within six months. It is because of the culpable delay on the part of the respondents in complying with the directions in the judgment, the petitioner was not given the promotion due to her. Of course, in between the promotions were stayed by this Court. But had the respondents complied with the directions in O.P.No. W.P(C) No. 29106 of 2006 -: 3 :- 14668/1992 at the appropriate time as directed by this Court, the petitioner would have received the benefits even before the retirement of the petitioner, is the contention raised. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. This Court disposed of O.P. No. 14668/1992 filed by the petitioner and others as early as on 1.8.2000 directing finalisation of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P1 order was passed only on 27.6.2003. The stay relied upon by the respondents came only in 2003, ie. after Ext.P1 order was passed. No doubt, the petitioner has been denied promotion due to her because of no fault of heirs. From Ext.P4, it is clear that the petitioner was entitled to such promotion with effect from 13.2.1996. Hence, part of the delay is attributable to the respondents themselves. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to direct the respondents to give the petitioner arrears of pay for part of the period of delay. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall be paid arrears of monetary benefits consequent on Ext.P4 promotion with effect from 1.3.2001 till the petitioner's retirement. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/