IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 16658 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL SALAM.J, HEAD OF SECTION(RETIRED) MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH, CENTRAL POLYTECHNIC THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. NOW RESIDING AT LIBAS MANZIL, KOCHUTHOTTAM MUKKU, AVIRAKUZHY P.O., CHITHARA(VIA), KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.REMANI T.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16658/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.82/99/H.EDN DT 14.6.99 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.252/2000/H.EDN DT 22.2.2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 21.10.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATATION DATED 26.5.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.5.2007 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16658 OF 2007 (G) ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as Head of Section, Mechanical Engineering Branch. Ext.P1 is the select list prepared for the post of Principals. Ext.P1 is dated 14/6/99 and the petitioner's name is included at Sl.No.10 for the year 1999-2000. 2. It is stated that in another writ petition, stay was granted by this court by order dated 13/7/99, as a result of which promotions from Ext.P1 got delayed. In the meantime, petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/10/99 and continued till 31/3/2000 on the strength of Rule 60(C) of Part I KSR. The stay granted as above was vacated on 9/2/2000 and Ext.P2 order effecting promotions from Ext.P1 list was issued on 22/2/2000. 3. Petitioner submits that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 60(C) of Part I KSR, until 31/10/99, he was entitled to all promotions, and as the delay in effecting promotion from Ext.P1 has occurred because of the stay granted, when promotions were effected, his eligibility should have been reckoned up to 31/10/99 and he ought to have been given promotion on that basis. It is contended now that he has retired, he is entitled to have his terminal benefits revised on that basis. WPC 16658/07 :2 : 4. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that though the petitioner was included in Ext.P1 list published on 14/6/99, promotions were effected only on 22/2/2000, which is much after 31/10/99. It is stated that the promotions effected by Ext.P2 were with prospective effect and as on that date since the petitioner was ineligible in terms of Rule 60(C) Part 1 of KSR, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit claimed in the writ petition. 5. It is true that the petitioner was included in Ext.P1 list of candidates eligible for promotion as Principal. However, it is a fact that promotions were effected only on 22/2/000, though it may be that delay has occurred in the matter. In Ext.P1, when promotions were effected on 22/2/2000, Government have specifically ordered that such promotions will come into force with immediate effect, which means that the promotions ordered were prospective. In the absence of any candidate included in Ext.P1 list having been given any promotion with retrospective effect, in my view, it is not open to the petitioner alone to raise a claim that he ought to have been promoted. Further, details of vacancy, if any, available when the petitioner was eligible is also not pleaded. In view of these, I am not prepared to accept the case of the petitioner that claim for WPC 16658/07 :3 : promotion ought to have been considered prior to 31/10/99 and benefits should be granted on that basis. Though not for reasons stated in Ext.P5, still for the aforesaid reasons, I am not in a position to accept the case of the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp