IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11354 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.K.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.G.KESAVA PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS, SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED) IN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, RESIDING AT MANTHARAYIL HOUSE, THIRUVACHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.K.S. ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 11354 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working as Assistant Store Keeper in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board {for short “the Board”}. On completion of 10 years service, he was given a Grade Promotion and his pay was fixed in the scale of pay applicable to the next Grade - Store Keeper Grade II. On completion of 25 years of service, another grade promotion was given and the pay was fixed in the scale of pay applicable to Store Keeper Grade I. By virtue of a long term settlement Ext.P1, Assistant Store Keepers were integrated with Senior Assistants. It seems that petitioner did not agree to the integration of the post of Assistant Store Keeper and Senior Assistant, because he had already been granted grade promotions by virtue of his length of service. Nevertheless, he and similarly situated persons were subjected to integration as per Ext.P1. It was found that consequent upon such integration, the incumbent was brought down to a lower time scale of pay. W.P ( C) No. 11354 of 2008 2 This was challenged by the petitioner and others before this court which led to Ext.P3 judgment, wherein the Board was directed to reconsider the case of petitioner and similarly situated persons with reference to the higher grade he was drawing prior to the integration and then to equate him with appropriate post in the ministerial cadre. Ext.P3 judgment in this regard was affirmed in Ext.P4. 2. Apparently, litigation did not end there, inasmuch as that, the direction in Exts.P3 and P4 were not fully carried out on the premise that, earlier Assistant Store Keepers did not have the qualification to be considered for integration to any higher post. The order passed in this regard was again challenged before this court by certain other persons. This led to Ext.P5 judgment. Petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation pointing out these aspects and claimed the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment. Since action has not been taken on Ext.P6, this writ petition has been filed. 3. In my view, the question as to whether the post, which was being occupied by the petitioner could be integrated to the higher post on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments had W.P ( C) No. 11354 of 2008 3 to be considered, de hors the issue of 'qualification', as has been held by this court in Ext.P5 judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board Sri.K.S.Anil submits that the claim made in this case is belated. Normally, I would have appreciated this contention and possibly would have accepted it also. But, I take note of the fact that the claimant is senior citizen and retired person. May be, for several constraints he did not approach this court earlier. Moreover, he is only claiming a benefit, which has been granted to person, who, according to him is similarly situated as per Ext.P5 judgment. In such circumstances, the Board may look into the claim made by the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation in the light of Ext.P5 judgment and take appropriate action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 11354 of 2008 4 ma W.P ( C) No. 11354 of 2008 5 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007 W.P ( C) No. 11354 of 2008 6 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience. Common issues arise in these writ petitions and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to W.P.(C)No.5774/08 for the sake of convenience.