IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8079 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.S.NAZIMUDDIN, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (RETIRED), MEDAYL HOUSE, MATHIRAPPALLY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT: ------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUDHI BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8079/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner entered service as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Electricity Board on 16.8.1982 and was subsequently promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in 1991 and Executive Engineer with effect from 22.1.1997. He was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer. He submits that there were sufficient vacancies in the said post, in which he could have been accommodated. 2. While working as Executive Engineer, petitioner was assigned the charge of the Project Engineer in Malankara Hydro Electric Project with effect from 21.12.1999 with full powers of the Deputy Chief Engineer as regards the function and administrative matters as per Ext.P1 order. Paragraph 1 and 2 of Ext.P1 reads as follows:- The Board is to have a firm time schedule for the implementation of Malankara Hydro Electricity Project. In W.P.(C).8079/2008 2 order to achieve this target the Board hereby orders, that a Project Manager be appointed for ensuring the completion of the project as per schedule. Accordingly sri.M.S.Nazeemuddin, Executive Engineer (Civil) Civil Division, Malankara is appointed as the Project Manager, Malankara Hydro Electricity Project. The Project Manager will be in overall charge of the Project and will be responsible for the progress of the Project in the Civil as well as Electrical side. The Project Manager will have the administrative and financial powers of the Deputy Chief Engineer with regard to sanctioning of expenditure for the project. 3. According to the petitioner, while continuing as a Project Manager, pursuant to Ext.P1, he was promoted as Deputy Chief Engineer by an order dated 22.1.2007 and he retired from service on 31.3.2007, while continuing there. He has received retirement benefits including pension. W.P.(C).8079/2008 3 4. Petitioner's grievance sought to be highlighted in the writ petition is that he had actually discharged the functions of a Deputy Chief Engineer, while functioning as a Project Engineer in the Malankara Hydro Electric Project pursuant to Ext.P1 order, and therefore, he is entitled to the scale of pay of the Deputy Chief Engineer with effect from 21.12.1999 onwards. The request made by him in this regard was turned down under Ext.P2 order. Ext.P2 has been challenged in this writ petition. 5. When the matter came up for admission on 11.3.2008, Standing Counsel was requested to get instructions as to whether the benefits sought for by the petitioner was granted to any other Executive Engineer who was given the responsibilities of a Deputy Chief Engineer in relation to any other project. 6. Mr.K.S.Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.E.B, submits that no other person who, while working as Executive Engineer and was given the charge of Project Engineer with the administrative and W.P.(C).8079/2008 4 functionary powers of Deputy Chief Engineer, was granted the scale of pay of the Deputy Chief Engineer until he was actually promoted to that category. Submission is recorded. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.N.Mohanan and the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board, I am of the view that in the circumstances, the stand taken by the Electricity Board cannot be faulted with. Petitioner was actually promoted as Chief Engineer only on 22.1.2007. The fact that while he was functioning as a Project Manager, he was given the limited powers as mentioned in Ext.P1 which seems to be in the context of sanctioning of expenditure for the project, will not entitle him to be treated as Deputy Chief Engineer as such. In the result, writ petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs