Dismissed

M.Thajudheen v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC11 Oct 2010WP(C)/37472/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned grade promotion and pay fixation for an employee of Kerala State Electricity Board. The court examined whether past leave without allowances could be construed retrospectively under 1995 Long Term Settlement. The court held the dispute was not maintainable regarding the settlement's application. Consequently, the petition challenging pay fixation and grade promotion wa

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no declaration or pay fixation relief granted.

M.Thajudheen Vs K.S.E.B. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 37472 of 2007(J) -----------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

--------------M.THAJUDHEEN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE MR.MOHAMMED KUNJU, N.N.MANZIL, NADUVILKARA, UDAYANELLOORE P.O.,KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. MR.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

---------------

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY, KSEB, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PAY FIXATION), O/O. THE CHIEG INTERNAL AUDITOR, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADV. MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 MR.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R4 MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1-4

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 37472 of 2007

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF LETTER NO.PAY.FIXN. A1/96/REVISED ELE. DN, MAVELIKKARA/818 DATED 12/11/1999 OF R4.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DTD 17/12/1999. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER DTD 01/02/2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.EB2/GRADE PROMOTION/2001-02 DTD 20-8-2001 OF DY.CHIEF ENGINEER.

¶22

EXT.P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 24.7.2006 OF PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.LAS.I/20014/2005 DTD 3.7.2007 OF SECRETARY, KSEB.

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

PA TO JUDGE.

¶25

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.37472 OF 2007

¶27

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2010

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He had availed of Leave Without Allowances for taking up employment prior to 16.12.1983. He completed ten years in the post of Junior Assistant/Cashier. Subsequently, by the Long Term Settlement of 1995, a provision was made in sub clause 11 of Article X thereof for counting leave on loss of pay sanctioned prior to 16.12.1983 for taking up employment abroad as service for granting higher grade. But in the meanwhile, the petitioner had already been promoted to the next higher post in 1991. After the Long Term Settlement came into force, taking into account clause 11 of Article X, the petitioner was given grade promotion with effect from 16.12.1988, notionally with monetary benefits from 1.8.1993. But on the ground that the Long Term Settlement came into force only with effect from 1.8.1993, by which time the petitioner had already got one promotion, the

¶30

W.P.(c)No.37472/07

¶31

¶32

grant of higher grade based on clause 11 of Article X was objected to and consequently the petitioner's pay was re-fixed.

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶34

“I. Call for records leading to Exhibit-P1, P3 P4 and P6 and issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, quashing Exhibits-P1, P3, P4 and P6, II. Declare that petitioner is entitled to get Grade promotion with effect from 06/12/1990 notionally and with monetary benefits from 01/08/1993, III. Direct respondents to revise petitioner's pay and terminal benefits on the basis of the above declaration and disburse the consequential benefits, forthwith IV. Direct respondents to pay costs of this proceedings to the petitioner”

¶35

The contention of the petitioner is that although the

¶36

Long Term Settlement came into force only with effect from 1.8.1993, in so far as clause 11 of Article X applied to leave on loss of pay prior to 16.12.1983, that benefit should be construed as retrospective in nature, in which case the petitioner is entitled to the first higher grade at least notionally and the next promotion also.

¶37

A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent taking the stand that since the Long Term Settlement came into force only with effect from 1.8.1993 only in respect of persons whose time bound higher grade is to be

¶38

W.P.(c)No.37472/07

¶39

¶40

sanctioned from 1.8.1993, the said clause can be applied.

¶41

I have considered the rival contentions in detail. After hearing both sides, I am inclined to agree with the respondents. The Long Term Settlement came into force only with effect from 1.8.1993, by which time the petitioner had already received one promotion. Therefore, the petitioner would not have been eligible for higher grade on 1.8.1993, since he had already received one promotion. I am of opinion that a liberal interpretation cannot be adopted to give the petitioner notional benefits retrospectively so as to give the petitioner higher grade based on clause 11 of Article X of the Long Term Settlement. As such, I am not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶43

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶44

acd

¶45

W.P.(c)No.37472/07 4

¶46

W.P.(c)No.37472/07 5

M.Thajudheen v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thajudheen v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reni a. Vs P.C.Binoy

E.v.Appukuttan Pillai Vs Kerala Water Authority

Adv.K.T.Raveendranath Vs State of Kerala

Prakash.S Vs Johny K.John and Another

Ashley Asokan K Vs v.Rajagopal

M.M.Shukur Vs the State of Kerala