IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2007 / 7TH ASHADHA 1929 WA.No. 1159 of 2005(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30652/2004 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVADNRUM. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- T.V.JACOB, ELECTRICAL GRADE-III (HIGHER GRADE), GENERATION DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, EDAMALAYAR. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.K.K.RAJEEV SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2007, ALONG WITH WA NO. 2015 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ ------------------- W.A.Nos.1159/2005 & 2015/2005 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2007 JUDGMENT K.S.Radhakrishnan, J. W.A.1159/05 is preferred against the judgment in W.P.(C).30652/2004 which was preferred to quash Exts.P4 and P10 orders issued by the first respondent, Kerala State Electricity Board, and also for a direction to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of 60. W.A.2015/2005 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C).1318/2005, which was preferred to set aside Ext.P3 order of the Board and also for a direction to allow the petitioner therein to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. Writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge. 2. We find similarly placed persons were already granted the benefits, in view of the various judgments delivered by this Court, for which appeals have not been preferred. Learned Judge noted those facts. 3. In the above circumstances, there is no W.A.NOS.1159 & 2015/2005 2 infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and hence both the appeals are dismissed. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge ANTONY DOMINIC Judge mrcs