IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 2849 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34691/2004 Dated 21/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- K.POCKER, S/O. KUNHIKUTTY ALI HAJI, SENIOR MANAGER (HIGHER GRADE (RETIRED) KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., NOW RESIDING AT KALLANGODAN HOUSE, KALPETTA, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STAT FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE "BHADRATHA", MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680020. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE "BHADRATHA", MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680020. 3. M.K.KARTHIKEYAN, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (FORMER), THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE "BHADRATHA" MUSEUM ROAD THRISSUR-680020. 4. SRI. P.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE (ENQUIRY OFFICER, KS.F.E. LTD.) NEAR TOWN HALL, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2849 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The appellant is the petitioner in WP(C) No.34691 of 2004. In that writ petition he challenged Ext.P34 order passed by the second respondent, the Managing Director of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited imposing on him the punishment of severe warning and Ext.P41 appellate order declining to interfere with the same. The learned single Judge held that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they were accordingly set aside. Though the learned single Judge also held that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the higher post of Regional Manager, in view of the fact that the petitioner had not worked in the promoted post, the petitioner's claim for payment of salary and allowances from the date on which his juniors were promoted to the said post, till the date of his retirement was declined. However, the learned single Judge directed that his pensionary benefits WA No.2849 of 2009 -:2:- should reflect the higher pay which he would have drawn had he been promoted at the appropriate time. 2. The pleadings disclose that pursuant to the judgment of the learned single Judge, the second respondent has issued Annexure-A memo dated 23.12.2008 stating that even after implementation of the judgment, the petitioner will not get any additional benefits. The appellant thereupon attempted a review of the judgment by filing RP No.189 of 2009. The Review Petition was dismissed by order passed on 04.03.2009, but reserving liberty with the appellant to challenge Annexure-A order or institute other proceedings as is deemed fit. This writ appeal was thereupon filed challenging the decision of the learned single Judge. The appellant contends that as the learned single Judge has held that the punishment imposed on him is liable to be set aside and that he was entitled to be promoted as Regional Manager, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the appellant is entitled to payment of salary and allowances in the promoted post. 3. We heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing WA No.2849 of 2009 -:3:- for the appellant. We have also gone through the pleadings and materials on record. The fact that the petitioner did not work in the post of Regional Manager is not in dispute. He had also retired from service on 28.02.2003, five years before the writ petition was disposed of. The learned single Judge has in paragraph 22 of the judgment under challenge held that as the petitioner has retired from service, he would not be entitled to salary and allowances of Regional Manager from the date on which his juniors were promoted to the said post, till the date of his retirement. The view taken by the learned Single Judge, in our view, does not call for any interference. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the passage of the time after the appellant retired from service and also the fact that he did not work as Regional Manager. On an overall view of the matter we are not satisfied that the decision of the learned single Judge merits interference in an intra court appeal. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. It is however clarified that, if the appellant is aggrieved by Annexure-A memo, WA No.2849 of 2009 -:4:- it will be open to him to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. His contentions in that regard are kept open. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, rJudge. ttb