IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11179 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.R. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, RETIRED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RESIDING AT PRASADAM, VENMONY P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 11179/2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 4..9.1999 OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES FROM 20.12.1991 TO 9.7.1999. EXT.P2 MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 19.3.2004 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY R2 ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. EXT.P3 REPLY DT. 29.4.2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R2. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 10.11.2004 OF R2. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 17.6.2004 OF R1. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 7.1.2006 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7 APPEAL DT. 8.7.2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 22.12.2005 IN I.A.19025/05 IN W.P.C. NO. 32117/2005. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 18.4.2006 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P10 MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DT. 6.1.2006 OF R2. EXT.P11 REPLY DT. 21.1.2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P12 ORDER DT. 13.6.2007 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P13 ORDER DT. 8.5.2007 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P14 JUDGMENT DT. 13.7/2007 IN W.P.C. NO. 12054/06. EXT.P15 MEMORANDUM OF WRIT APPEAL 1 NO. 276/2008 FILED BYTHE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THIS COURT. EXT.P16 JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 276/2008 DT. 4.2.2008. EXT.P17 ORDER DT. 12.3.2008 OF THE GOVERNMENT. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 11179 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 30th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging that part of Ext. P17 order by which while granting to the petitioner benefits of a promotion in accordance with Ext. P14 judgment, the same was made notional without any monetary benefits. The petitioner who was an Assistant Sales-tax Commissioner was eligible for promotion as Deputy Commissioner in 2004. But in view of disciplinary proceedings pending, the petitioner was not considered for such promotion. He started a long drawn out legal battle for his right of promotion. Ultimately in W.P(C) No. 32117/2005 there was an interim order to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee and to consider the petitioner for inclusion in Ext. P5 select list prepared. But, in Ext. P9 select list prepared consequent to the order, the petitioner was again excluded apparently on the ground that by that time another disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner again filed W.P(C) No. 12050/2006. In that writ petition, there was an interim order to promote the petitioner provisionally as Deputy Commissioner. While that writ petition was pending, the respondents themselves prepared Ext. P13 select list, in which the petitioner was included in his appropriate place in the year 2004. Despite the same, the petitioner was not given the promotion. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 12054/2006. By that time, the petitioner had retired from service also. By Ext. P14 judgment, after noting the fact that the petitioner had already retired in the meanwhile, this Court directed the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner in the light of Ext. P13 select list with retrospective effect and to grant him the benefits flowing from the promotion in W.P(C) No. 11179 of 2008 -: 2 :- accordance with law within 3 months from the date of production of a coy of the judgment. Although the State tried a writ appeal, that was unsuccessful as revealed by Ext. P16 judgment. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed Ext. P17 order, whereby the petitioner was given retrospective promotion but only notionally with notional fixation of pay without any monetary benefits arising therefrom and enhanced pensionary benefits. The petitioner is challenging that order. 2. The learned Government Pleader with the help of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that in Ext. P14 judgment, it has not been made clear that the petitioner is entitled to salary and other monetary benefits, in the absence of which the petitioner is entitled to only notional benefits of promotion. I am unable to agree. Ext. P14 judgment reads as follows: “The petitioner while working as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee and published by the Government for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. During the pendency of the writ petition, he has retired from service also. But, he was promoted provisionally as Deputy Commissioner on the eve of his retirement. Now the Government have published Ext. P13 DPC list, in which, he is shown as rank no. 2 among the eligible officers for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner during the year 2004. In view of the above position, the petitioner prays the Government may be directed to promote him to one of the vacancies that arose in the year 2004 and grant him all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for the party respondents also. The 1st respondent is directed to promote the petitioner in the light of Ext. P13 DPC list, with retrospective effect and grant him the benefits flowing from W.P(C) No. 11179 of 2008 -: 3 :- the promotion in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of a cop of this judgment.” I am of opinion that that judgment does not confine the benefit of promotion to the petitioner notionally. On the other hand, it has been expressly made clear that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the promotion, which would naturally include monetary benefits as well in the absence of any restriction regarding the same in the judgment. Therefore, Ext. P17 order, to the extent it grants the benefits of promotion only notionally, is quashed. The respondents are directed to see that the petitioner is paid all arrears of monetary benefits arising from Ext. P17 promotion as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/