IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26054 of 2006(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. L. REMESH, S/O. LAZAR S.M., SUB ENGINEER (CIVIL), GENERATION CIRCLE, KSEB, MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JAYAN M.R., S/O.K. RAGHAVAN, SUB ENGINEER (CIVIL), GENERATION CIRCLE, KSEB, MOOLAMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERATION CIRCLE, KSEB, MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. R.S. ANIL KUMAR, SUB ENGINEER (CIVIL) VADAKKEPUZHA SUB DIVISION, KSEB, KULAMAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. (R5 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.8315/10 DTD.24.6.10) 6. R.S. ANIL KUMAR, SUB ENGINEER (CIVIL) P.D.S. VAIDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R.1TO4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 26054/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ADVICE ORDER DTD.10.4.95. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.24.9.97 TO R1. P2A. COPY OF THE 2ND PETITION DTD.22.7.99. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.11.2000 BY R2. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.5.2005 BY R3. P5. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.24.8.05 BY R1. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.3.2001 BY THE BOARD. P7. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.5.5.2005 BY R2. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.2.12.05 BY R3. P9. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.29.7.06 TO R2. P10. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.14.7.98 BY THE BOARD. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.26054 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners entered the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board in the post of Foreman (Civil) on 17.1.1995 and 1.4.1998 respectively. In the Board, there is an equivalent category of post by name, Sub Engineer (Civil). That post carries the same scale of pay as that of Foreman (Civil). The qualification required for appointment to both posts are also the same. The Board decided to integrate those two posts into one post, viz., 'Sub Engineer (Civil)' with effect from 29.8.2000. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that consequent upon such integration of two posts, instead of regulating the inter-se seniority among Sub Engineers (Civil) and Foremen (Civil) on the basis of their date of entry into service, all the Foremen (Civil ) have been given seniority below the junior-most Sub Engineer (Civil), which, according to them, is arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs; “(i) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to count their full service reckoning from the original date of entry in service as Foreman (Civil) towards the service of Sub Engineer (Civil) for the purpose of seniority and further promotion and all other service benefits and also to declare that the seniority assigning to the petitioners in the grade of Sub Engineer (Civil) only from the date of integration from 22.5.2000 and excluding their names from Exhibit P6 is arbitrary and discriminatory. (ii) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the case and to quash Exhibit P8. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to assign seniority to the petitioners from their original date of advice as Foreman (Civil) towards the grade of sub Engineer (Civil) and assign due positions in the seniority list of Sub Engineer (Civil) and consider that seniority for all service benefits, including promotion etc. w.p.c.26054/06 2 (iv) to direct the respondents to include the names of the 1st respondent in Exhibit P6 between 685 A, Sri.C.Arun Kumar and 686 Sri P.Krishnakumar as 685B and also to include the name of the 2nd petitioner between Sl No.775 and 776 as 775A, and declaring that the petitioners are senior to the respondents 5 & 6 and others similarly situated in the grade of Sub Engineer (Civil).” 2. Ext.P6 referred to in the prayers is the revised seniority list of Sub Engineers (Civil), as on 31.5.2000, published on 23.3.2001. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent taking the contention that while issuing Ext.P3 order integrating those two posts with effect from 29.8.2000, it was specifically ordered that the Foremen (Civil) would be placed junior to the junior-most Sub Engineer (Civil), Shri.R.Renjith, for the purpose of seniority. They further submit that the same was based on a long term settlement entered into between the unions of employees of the Electricity Board and the Electricity Board. A reply affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. 4. I have heard the counsel on both sides. 5. Initially I was inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to seniority in the cadre of Sub Engineer (Civil) after integration of the two posts, on the basis of their dates of entry into service, since the scales of pay of both posts were the same and the qualifications required for appointment to the two posts were also the same. But the standing counsel for the Electricity Board points out a formidable objection. It is pointed out that in Ext.P3 w.p.c.26054/06 3 order dated 30.11.2000 the Board had specifically stipulated that five Foremen (Civil) who would come over as Sub Engineers (Civil) after integration with effect from 29.8.2000 shall rank below the junior- most Sub Engineer (Civil), Shri.R.Renjith, appointed vide order dated 22.5.2000 for the purpose of inter se seniority in the integrated category. According to the counsel, since the petitioners have not challenged Ext.P3 within a reasonable time and have not even challenged the same in this writ petition, Ext.P3 has become final and the petitioners cannot now seek a relief contrary to Ext.P3. I find considerable merit in that contention. Even Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioners in that regard is dated 24.8.2005, whereas Ext.P3 is dated 30.11.2000. This writ petition is filed only on 31.10.2006. Even in the writ petition the petitioners have not found it necessary to challenge Ext.P3. Without challenging Ext.P3, the petitioners cannot now seek seniority in the integrated category of Sub Engineer (Civil), insofar as there is a specific condition therein regarding regulation of seniority as among the Sub Engineers (Civil) and Foremen (Civil). For that reason, the petitioners are bound to fail in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.26054/06 4