IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10189 of 2008(K) PETITIONER: N.BALASHANMUGHAM, AGED 81 YEARS, 10/193 PATASALA STREET, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 101. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENTS: 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HR), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ANIL - STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10189 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an 81 year old man, who retired from the service of the Electricity Board as a Senior Superintendent on 30.6.1981. Apparently, he along with others had raised a dispute regarding their seniority being overlooked in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent and the same reached this court in O.P.No.4100/1976. Apparently, the writ petition was dealt with by a Full Bench of this court and the same was allowed. An appeal preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. By the time, the petitioner had retired from service. Even notional promotion was not granted to them. They had approached this court in O.P.No.12544/96. The Board was directed to take a decision on their representation. 2. Since benefits were not granted, the petitioner had approached this court in O.P.No.20226/95, which was disposed of under Ext.P2 judgment. Pursuant thereof, Ext.P3 order was passed fixing the petitioner's pay notionally, consequent upon notional promotion to the posts of Upper Division Clerk, Junior Superintendent, Senior Superintendent, W.P.(C).NO.10189/08 :: 2 :: Assistant Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer with retrospective effect. But monetary benefits were not sanctioned and the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 representation in relation to the same. Ext.P4 will have to be treated as an appeal against Ext.P3. In my view, Ext.P4 ought tobe considered by the Board itself. 3. I heard counsel on both sides. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to forward Ext.P4 to the 1st respondent within one month from today. Thereafter, a decision shall be within two months thereafter, after hearing a representative of the petitioners. This direction will be operative, provided Ext.P4 has been received by the Board and pending. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge