IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 1104 of 2009(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12213/2008 Dated 01/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/IST PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, EXCISE GUARD,EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,PALA, NOW AT EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE,KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & PETITIONERS 2 & 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *4. P.M.MAJEED, EXCISE GUARD,EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,KOTTAYAM. * (DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY) *5. K.C.ALEXANDER, EXCISE GUARD,EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KURUVULINGAD,KOTTAYAM. * (DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY) * R4 AND R5 ARE DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER, AS PER ORDER IN I.A. 2/2010 DATED 13.1.2010. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kp S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 1104 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No. 12213 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 ORDER This review petition is filed seeking review of judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.C No.12213/08. In that writ petition, the petitioner in the review petition sought restoration of original seniority on his inter-district transfer. He wanted to compare his case with the case of 19 other Excise Guards in Kannur Division who were transferred to Kottayam Division. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition as follows: “As noted above, crucial distinction is that the petitioners were transferred to Kottayam Division on their request and obviously this would have resulted in loss of seniority in the parent district. There is no merit in the request made by the petitioners. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 2. With the help of Annexure A order, the petitioner would want to pointed out that the case of the 19 Excise Guards referred to in the writ petition were also transferred on request as is evident R.P..No.1104 of 2009 in W.P.C.12213 of 2008 : 2 : from the last sentence in Annexure A order of transfer. Therefore, the petitioner would content that the judgment was rendered on a wrong premise that the petitioner's case was not identical to that of those 19 Excise Guards. 3. I have heard the parties. 4. Even assuming that the case of the 19 Excise Guards are comparable to case of petitioner, even then the petitioner would not be eligible for the benefits prayed for. The basic Government Order permitting inter-district transfer specifically stipulated that on inter district transfer on request the transferee would join the district to which he or she was transferred as a junior most in the category. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim original seniority after obtaining the inter-district transfer on request. Even assuming that in Annexure A order somebody else has been given any benefit contrary to the Government Order, it is only an illegality. This Court cannot perpetuate that illegality by giving that benefit to the petitioner also. In any event, the Supreme Court has time and again held that illegal benefit cannot be conferred on the ground of R.P..No.1104 of 2009 in W.P.C.12213 of 2008 : 3 : negative discrimination. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this review petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) //True copy// P.S. To Judge. kp