IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2726 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- B.SOMANATHAN ,SOORYABHAVAN (FROM PUTHUSERETH) KOIPALLYKARAMA OLAKETTIYAMBALAM (PO) MAVELIKARA. REIRED OPERATOR, P.H.SECTION OFFICE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,KAYAMKULAM) BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.H.DIVISION OFFICE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,ALAPPUZHA. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.H.DIVISION OFFICE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR - STANDING COUNSEL FOR KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2726 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from the Water Authority on 28.2.2006. He had entered the Public Health Engineering Department in the year 1976. He was enlisted as NMR Worker with effect from 4.8.1977. As per G.O.(Rt)No.2012/85/LA & SWD dated 26.6.1985 he was absorbed in the permanent establishment with effect from 1.4.1984 and was promoted as Operator with effect from 25.7.1984. As per the Rules relating to Time Bound Higher Grade contained in Ext.P1 Government Order, according to the petitioner, the first higher Grade should have been granted on completion of 10 years service in the entry post, provided there is stagnation in the said post. If a promotion had taken place, in the meanwhile, the second higher grade shall be granted on completion of a total service of 18 years or on completion of 8 years' service after the first promotion and then 3rd higher grade after 23 years of total service. The petitioner submits that the service must be reckoned with effect W.P.(C).NO.2726/08 :: 2 :: from 4.8.1977 and since there was a cadre promotion within 10 years, the second higher grade must be granted on completion of 8 years service in the promoted category. If that be so, the higher grade promotion must have been granted on completion of 8 years from 25.7.1984 and the 3rd higher grade should have been granted by reckoning 23 years with effect from 4.8.1977. Apparently, a mistake had occurred, according to the petitioner, when the first higher grade was sanctioned on completion of 10 years service in the promoted post i.e. 25.7.1984. This is evidenced by Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that in effect, therefore, the grant of the first higher grade was improperly made inasmuch as that, it should have been granted on completion of 8 years of service in the post, but since there was a cadre promotion within 10 years, the petitioner should have been granted the second higher grade on completion of 8 years service in the promoted post. 2. The second aspect highlighted by the petitioner relates to the pay scale of qualified hands, who are granted the 3rd higher grade. According to the W.P.(C).NO.2726/08 :: 3 :: petitioner, since the petitioner is qualified to occupy the post of Mechanical Superintendent, on completion of 23 years of service, he should have been granted Rs.6935- 11460. Though an objection was earlier raised by the Accountant General, on a clarification given by the Managing Director, the said objection was overruled by Ext.P9 and the petitioner is included in Ext.P7 as serial No.40. Petitioner submits that pursuant to Ext.P7, the 3rd time bound higher grade on completion of 23 years service was given to him in the scale of pay of Rs.6935- 11460 as per Ext.P9, but the benefits were not actually disbursed to him. In other words, it was not implemented. Not only so, by Ext.P10 order, the Assistant Executive Engineer proceeded to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on completion of 23 years service higher grade at Rs.5135-7935, instead of the higher scale of Rs.6935-11460. There was also a direction to recover the excess payment given to the petitioner. Ext.P10 has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. A similar case was considered by this court in W.P.(C)No.28014/05 and by Ext.P11 judgment W.P.(C).NO.2726/08 :: 4 :: recording the stand taken by the Water Authority in the counter affidavit, though there was an earlier objection that the petitioner does not have a qualification of ITI and therefore, not eligible to second and third higher grade, the Government had fixed specific qualifications of Operator by Government order dated 21.5.1979. Since the petitioner came into NMR service prior to the issuance of the 1979 order, he was entitled for exemption from the prescribed technical qualification and eligible for second higher grade. Petitioner herein submits that his case will have to be considered on a par with the petitioner in Ext.P11 and he has brought this to the notice of the 1st respondent already by Ext.P12 representation. Essentially, Ext.P12 can be considered as an objection to Ext.P9 and it is up to the 1st respondent to take a decision thereon in accordance with law and consistent with the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.28014/05, which was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P12, hear the W.P.(C).NO.2726/08 :: 5 :: petitioner and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge