IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35140 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.MARIAMMA, DEPUTY SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4 BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.T.ISSAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, A & E, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.35140 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is now working as Deputy Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission. She originally joined as a Confidential Assistant and she acquired qualifications prescribed for the post of Section Officer. Although a vacancy arose for the post of Section Officer on 6.7.1999, she was not given promotion due to her. The issue was taken up before this Court and this Court, by Ext.P1 judgment, held as follows: “Consequently, the Public Service Commission is bound to review the seniority as between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and all further promotions of the 3rd respondent, and the petitioner should be given such promotion as well as seniority in all subsequent promotions ahead of the 3rd respondent, if, otherwise the petitioner is fit for such promotion. Therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall review all further promotions accordingly. The entire process as directed above shall be taken up and completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner is found eligible for such future promotions ahead of the 3rd respondent, she would also be entitled to monetary benefits arising from such retrospective promotions.” The same was taken in appeal before the Division Bench by aggrieved employees and, by Ext.P2 judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Consequently, orders were passed by the Public Service Commission, wherein the petitioner was given promotion retrospectively, but the same was stated to be notional promotion, meaning thereby that the same is without any monetary benefits. The petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition seeking the w.p.c.35140/10 2 following reliefs: “i) a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside Ext.P3 order to the extent the retrospective promotions are granted only on notional basis. ii) a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside Ext.P9. iii) a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 and to issue orders deleting the word 'Notional' in the promotions of the petitioner in Ext.P3 order and to issue specific orders for payment of arrears of salary for the periods of retrospective promotions. iv) a writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to refix the pay of the petitioner in the promoted posts as per Ext.P3 as if the petitioner had been on duty in the promoted posts, and to grant arrears of salary for the retrospective periods of the retrospective promotions in the pay scale of the promoted posts.” 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Accountant General. 3. In view of Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner is entitled to retrospective promotion with all monetary benefits arising therefrom. This is not disputed by either of the respondents. The learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission points out that in Ext.P6 it has been stated so. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even now the PSC is not prepared to issue a unambiguous order holding specifically that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of monetary benefits as well for the retrospective promotion in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2 judgments. Her grievance is that in view of the same, the Accountant w.p.c.35140/10 3 General is not prepared to authorise payment of the arrears of monetary benefits arising from the retrospective promotion. Insofar as it is beyond dispute that the petitioner is entitled to all monetary benefits also arising from the retrospective promotion given to her in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, it is only just and proper that the respondents take appropriate action to see that the petitioner is granted the arrears of monetary benefits arising from the retrospective promotion also. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: It is declared that pursuant to Exts.P3 and P6, the petitioner is entitled to arrears of monetary benefits arising from the retrospective promotion granted thereby. Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall authorise payment of the monetary benefits arising from the petitioner's retrospective promotion, which has been recognised by Exts.P3 and P6 orders and issue pay-slip to the petitioner authorising the petitioner to draw the arrears of the monetary benefits. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.35140/10 4