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. 11394 of 2005(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. P.K.POULOSE, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, K.S.E.B., KANJIKODE.P.O. PALAKKAD. 2. SOOSY.K.V., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CIRCLE, KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE, P.O.ERNAKULAM. 3. JOSEPH JOHN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (MECHANICAL), DIESEL POWER PLANT, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. 4. SANTHAKUMARI.A.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ACCOUNT CLOSING SECTION, K S E B, KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE P.O., ERNAKULAM. 5. ITTOOP, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL), K S E B, PULIYAN HOUSE, AZHAKAM P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAMACHANDRAN.K.B., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K S E B, POWER HOUSE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11394/2005 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/08/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 7/07/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 5/12/2003. EXT.P$: COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29/04/2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V. GIRI ,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.11394 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners entered service in the Kerala State Eelectricity Board in 1989 as Overseer. They were subsequently promoted as Sub Engineers and thereafter as Assistant Engineers. Apparently, one K.B.Ramachandran who entered service as Sub Engineer in October, 1994 subsequent to the petitioners' entry into service came to be shown as junior to the petitioners in the gradation list of Sub Engineers and therefore K.B.Ramachandran was promoted as Assistant Engineer subsequent to the petitioners. The petitioners were granted one increment more than K.B.Ramachandran in the scale of pay applicable to the Assistant Engineers. Considering the fact that they were senior to him this situation continued till the implementation of the pay revision for the year 1998. Apparently on fixation, Ramachandran started drawing one increment more than the petitioners. The petitioners therefore sought for stepping up their pay. Representations were filed, but they were not heeded to. But ultimately Ext.P4 order was issued stating that as per clause 7(i) of Board Order No.460/01(PS1/OPR/00 dated 23.2.2001 the senior and the junior officers should belong to the same category and should have WPC. 11394/2005 2 been promoted to the same category of posts for stepping up the pay. That in the case of the first petitioner, his entry cadre and the entry cadre of his junior K.B.Ramachandran are different and therefore, the request for stepping up is not eligible to be accepted. 2. Clause 7(i) and (ii) of the said order which is referred to in Ext.P4 read as follows:- “ 7(i) The senior and the junior officers should belong to the same category and should have been promoted to the same category of post. 7(ii) The pre-revised and revised scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. 3. Admittedly both P.K.Paulose and K.B.Ramachandran belong to the same category of Assistant Engineer. They were promoted as Assistant Engineers. They also belonged to the same category of Sub Engineers from which they were promoted as Assistant Engineers. They were drawing pay in the same scale while functioning as Sub Engineers. If that be so, clause 7(i) and (ii) of the order seems to support the case of the petitioners and not otherwise as pointed out in Ext.P4. 4. The Board has also taken note of the fact that the post of Overseer was apparently upgraded in the year 1990 and the first petitioner was promoted as Sub Engineer in December,1990 but WPC. 11394/2005 3 Sri.Ramachandran joined as Sub Engineer only in October,1994. If that be so, obviously the petitioners were entitled to seek stepping up of their pay on a par with Sri. Ramachandran. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to stepping up of the pay in the pay scale made applicable to Assistant Engineers (on a par with that drawn by Sri.Ramachandran) consequent upon the pay revision order of 1998. Consequential orders shall be passed in this regard by the first respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/ WPC. 11394/2005 4