IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1234 of 2006() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.20957/2003 dated 20.12.2005 APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS IN THE W.P. 1. C.K.GOPI, STATION MASTER GRADE-II, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VAIKOM. 2. N.KARTHIKEYAN, (RETIRED STATION MASTER GRADE II, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM), KARTHIKA BHAVANAM, MAHADEVIKAD.P.O, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. K.K.VIJAYAN, STATION MASTER GRADE II, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. 4. V.N.RAJAPPAN,STATION MASTER GRADE II, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. 5. K.K.GOPI, STATION MASTER GRADE II, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R1-2&4-6 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R1-2 & 4-6 SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R6 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1234 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondents herein were the writ petitioners. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The respondents were working in the post of Boat Masters Grade II under the second appellant in the State Water Transport Department. They were granted first and second higher grade as per the relevant orders in force. On completion of 23 years of service, they were eligible to get the third higher grade. The dispute raised in the Writ Petition was whether the writ petitioners are entitled to get the scale of pay of the promotion post, the Traffic Superintendent or the appropriate next higher scale in the standard scales of pay. According to the appellants, the respondents were not test qualified as per the rules, like a pass in the Manual of Office W.A. NO. 1234/2006 2 Procedure test and Account Test (Lower) and, therefore, they are ineligible for the scale of pay of the promotion post. But, overruling the objections of the appellants, the Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 27447 of 2003 and 32107 of 2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred by the respondents in the Writ Petition. 3. The facts and the legal position are not in dispute. The Pay Revision Government Order, G.O.(P)3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 specifically states as follows: “While assigning higher grade only qualified hands i.e., those possessing the qualification prescribed for the promotion post will get the scales of pay of regular promotion posts. Unqualified hands, will be allowed the next higher scale of pay above that of the scale of pay of the post held at that time, in the standard scales of pay.” As mentioned earlier, it is not in dispute that the respondents were not having the prescribed qualifications for promotion to the post of Traffic Superintendent. Therefore, going by the above provision in the Pay Revision Government Order, they are not entitled to get the scale of pay applicable to the promotion post. So, the judgment under appeal is liable W.A. NO. 1234/2006 3 to be reversed. We do so. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1234/2006 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1234/2006 JUDGMENT 6th July, 2009