IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17644 of 2008(A) PETITIONER: ---------------------- P.P.JOSHI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORTION LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KANNUR. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17644 of 2008 A ------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Junior Superintendent in the first respondent Corporation. He was promoted from the post of Store Keeper as early as in 1996, as evidenced by Ext.P1 order. He is aged 56 years, with only 1 year and 11 months to superannuation. He is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, insofar as he has been put in charge of the Regional Store, Ernakulam. In other words, according to the petitioner, while functioning as the Junior Superintendent, he is asked to officiate as a Store Keeper also. It is further pointed out that, at the same time, by the same order, the person, who was holding the charge of the Regional Store, Ernakulam Sri.P.B.Joseph, who is an Accounts Assistant and therefore junior to the petitioner, is given full additional charge of Accounts Officer, which is a promotion post of Junior Superintendent. The petitioner does not challenge the charge given to Sri.P.B.Joseph, but only points out that it is illegal for the 1st respondent to put him in charge of the Regional Store, where he is W.P.(C).NO.17644 of 2008 :: 2 :: required to discharge the duties of a Store Keeper, from which post he was promoted 12 years ago. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2, in which they contend that the charge given under Ext.P5 is only temporary. Sri.P.B.Joseph is qualified to be promoted as Accounts Officer and therefore, he has been asked to officiate in the said post. The contention of the petitioner is that there are other persons who can be asked to take charge of the Regional Store; i.e., the function of a Store Keeper. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that there are no suitable persons as such. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which the names of other persons, who are currently functioning as Senior Assistants and who have been given Grade promotions to the post of Store Keeper are still working at Ernakulam, are given. 4. I do not propose to consider the question as to whether any person other than the petitioner is actually available in Ernakulam to be given charge of the Regional Store. It is difficult to believe that an organisation like W.P.(C).NO.17644 of 2008 :: 3 :: the first respondent finds it impossible to find out a person to act as the Store Keeper in Ernakulam. Anyway, the posting of a suitable person in the post lies within the domain of the first respondent. 5. What has been challenged in this writ petition is the petitioner being given charge of a Store Keeper as per Ext.P5. Rule 19 of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Service Rules produced as Ext.P8, along with the reply affidavit reads as follows: “19. Officiating appointments: The Managing Director may by written order require an employee to officiate in a higher post and during such period of officiation, the employee will continue in the lower scale of pay of the posts concerned. The arrangement may be subject to the payment of charge allowance” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, with reference to Rule 19, that it is open to the Management to require the petitioner to officiate in another post. But that can be only in a higher post and not in a lower post. I find force in this submission. No doubt, the W.P.(C).NO.17644 of 2008 :: 4 :: petitioner could be asked to officiate in a post other than that of a Junior Superintendent. But that can only be putting him in a post, which is higher in the hierarchy of posts that is available in the 1st respondent. 7. In the circumstances, I find that Ext.P5 is unsustainable, to the extent to which the petitioner is asked to officiate in the post of a Store Keeper i.e., to the extent to which he has been put in charge of the Regional Store, Ernakulam as a Store Keeper. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is quashed to the extent to which the petitioner has been put in charge of the Regional Store, Ernakulam as a Store Keeper. But, I make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the management requiring the petitioner to officiate in any other post, in consonance with Rule 19 of Ext.P8 Rules. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge