IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20865 of 2006(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. E.N.NARAYANA PILLAI, T.C.NO.28/285, OTTUKAL STREET, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JERALD ALPHONSE D. CRUZE, ASHTAMI, T.C.13/110. PETTA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUJESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADVS. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R3 STANDING COUNSEL MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN FOR KSEB GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20865 of 2006 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the order issued by the Government dated 3.4.1957. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the relevant portion of the long term settlement dated 11.9.1995. Ext.P3 :- Copy of G.O.(P)No.252/96, dated 15.3.1996. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the order B.O.No.1220/96(Estt.V./1768/96) issued by the Board dated 25.5.1996. Ext.P5 :- Copy of G.O.230/(124)/97/finance, dated 14.2.97. Ext.P6 :- Copy of letter No.9833/A2/97/PD issued by Government, dated 3.9.1997. Ext.P7 :- Copy of the government order G.O.(P)No.3001/98/Fin. Dated 25.11.1998. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the judgment in O.P.No.25707/1998 of this Honourable Court, dated 19/7/2006. Respondent's Exhibits :- Ext.R3(a) :- Copy of the judgment dated 26.03.2003 in Civil Appeal No.832/2002 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. //True Copy// P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Electricity Department of Government of Kerala, as a Lower Division Clerk on 1.11.1955. Subsequently, on constitution of Kerala State Electricity Board with effect from 1.4.1957 along with others, the 1st petitioner was also transferred to the Board and he continued in the Board, till retirement on 30.4.1985 as an Accounts Officer. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he was appointed in the Electricity Board itself as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from 25.2.1963 and retired as a Senior Superintendent (Non- Cadre) on 31.7.1996. 2. The claim of the petitioners is for the benefit of W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 -: 2 :- Exts.P5 and P7. Ext.P5 is the Government Order, extending interim relief to the employees of the Government with effect from 1.2.1997. Petitioners contended that the Board extended the benefit of the above Government Order to the Board employees with effect from 1.7.1998. According to them, they are entitled to be given the benefit with effect from 1.2.1997. Ext.P7 is the Government Order dated 25.11.1998, revising the pension and other related benefits consequent to the revision of pay scales, with effect from 1.3.1997. The complaint of the petitioners is that the Electricity Board implemented Ext.P7 order only with effect from 1.7.1998 and that they should be extended the benefit of Ext.P7 with effect from 1.3.1997 itself. 3. In so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, being an employee of the erstwhile Electricity Board, he relies on Ext.P1 order of the Government of Kerala dated 3.4.1957 and particularly Clause Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 of the said order. W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 -: 3 :- He also relied on Sec.60 of the Electricity Board (Supply) Act, 1948 and contended that he is entitled to the benefit as claimed for. 4. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he relies on Ext.P2, a long term settlement and in particular Clause 5 of Ext.P2, which provides that pension and other related benefits will be revised in line with the revisions ordered by the State Government from time to time. Therefore, he contends that when the State Government extended the benefit of Exts.P5 and P7, the Board should have implemented those orders with effect from the date from which the State Government extended the benefits and that the Board could not have been postponed the benefit to any future date. 5. Stand adopted by the Electricity Board is that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit as prayed for. According to the Board, they adopted Exts.P5 and P7 only W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 -: 4 :- with effect from 1.7.1998 and therefore the petitioners could not have been extended the benefit of these orders from any date prior to 1.7.1998. The Board also relies on Ext.R3(a), the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.832 of 2002 to support these contentions. 6. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board. 7. The question is whether the petitioners are eligible for the benefit of Exts.P5 and P7 with effect from 1.2.1997 and 1.3.1997 respectively as claimed by them or whether the Board has the liability only with effect from 1.7.1998 when they adopted these orders. 8. In my view, the case of the petitioners will have been considered separately. 9. As far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, as already noticed, he entered erstwhile Electricity W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 -: 5 :- Department with effect from 1.11.1955 and was transferred to the Board, on its constitution with effect from 1.4.1957. Ext.P1 order issued by the Government on the eve of constitution of Electricity Board, wherein the Government have made certain commitments. It is stated that the Board should give the benefit of increased emoluments which may be sanctioned from the Government from time to time for similar officers in the PWD and other departments. Therefore at the time of the transfer of employees like petitioners, the Government made it clear that they will be entitled to parity in the matter of emoluments with the employees of PWD and other Government departments. That apart Sec.60 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 also provided that all obligations incurred by the Government before the constitution of the Board shall be deemed to have been incurred by the Board. If that be so, employees like the 1st W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 -: 6 :- petitioner, who were recruited in to the Electricity Department and transferred to Electricity Board are protected by Ext.P1 and the Board is liable to extend the benefit including the benefits as revised from time to time, on a par with government employees working in the Public Works Department and other government departments. In that view of the matter, when Exts.P5 and P7 were issued by the Government, giving interim relief to the government employees with effect from 1.2.1997 and revised the pension with effect from 1.3.1997, employees like 1st petitioner are entitled to such benefits. Ofcourse, when on subsequent pay revision or pension revision interim relief is merged with those orders, only such benefits as are admissible, alone will be due to them. Therefore, 1st petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Exts.P5 and P7 and there is no question of any adoption of these orders in so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned. W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 -: 7 :- 10. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he has claimed the benefit of Exts.P5 and P7 with effect from 1.2.1997 and 1.3.1997 respectively based on Clause 5 of Ext.P2 long term settlement. From Ext.R3(a) order of the Apex Court it is seen that employees similar to the 2nd petitioner had claimed those benefits and this Court dismissed the writ petition and appeal on the ground that these orders were not adopted by the Board at that time. Ext.R3(a) order also shows that subsequently, Exts.P5 and P7 orders were adopted by the respondent Board. Therefore, the fact that adoption of Exts.P5 and P7 was necessarily for extending the benefit, at least in so far as those appointed in the Board are concerned, cannot be disputed. If so, implementation of these orders in respect of employees like 2nd petitioner can only be from the date on which such orders are to be adopted by the Board. In that view of the matter the 2nd petitioner can claim the benefit of W.P.(C) No.20865 of 2006 -: 8 :- Exts.P5 and P7 only from the date on which the Board has adopted these orders, namely; 1.7.1998. Therefore, in so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Board to extend the benefit of Exts.P5 and P7, if any still due, with effect from 1.2.1997 and 1.3.1997 respectively and in so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the writ petition will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt