Disposed

Muraleedharan V.B. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC2 Jul 2013WP(C)/3672/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent to pay all monetary benefits, including arrears of salary, to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 23-7-2000, modifying an order that denied such benefits and holding the denial illegal.

What did the court decide?

Directed payment of all monetary benefits including arrears of salary from 23-7-2000 and modification of the impugned notification.

Muraleedharan V.B. Vs Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2013/11TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 3672 of 2012 (H) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MURALEEDHARAN V.B., SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PATTIMATTOM ERNAKULAM

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 3672 of 2012 (H) ---------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF 1995 LONG TERM SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN TO BY KSEB AND THE TRADE UNINS.

¶19

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB4/120(c)/1999 DT 7/2/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 19/1/2005 IN OP NO.6010/03 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶21

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 28/5/09 IN WA 447/05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶22

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB.4(B)/CCC 1229/09 DT 7/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ; NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.3672 OF 2012

¶29

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner was directly recruited as Meter Reader in KSEB on 3-2-1997. The post of Meter Reader which was held by the petitioner carried the highest scale of pay among the different categories of posts in the feeder category. As per Rule 28(b)(i) Note VI, when there are more than one feeder category carrying different scale of pay, then unless separate ratio is provided for each post in the feeder category, persons occupying the post carrying the higher scale of pay shall be promoted first in preference to others.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent issued Ext.P2 order on 7-2-2003 giving promotions to persons who are occupying different posts in the feeder category carrying a lower scale of pay than that of Meter Reader on the basis of the seniority fixed on total length of service in the Board. The petitioner along with other affected parties challenged the same and approached this Court by filing O.P.No.6010/03. This Court allowed the said original petition vide Ext.P3 judgment quashing Ext.P2 order declaring that the action of the respondents in denying promotion to Meter Readers including the petitioner in preference to others holding different posts in the feeder category carrying lower scales of pay was

¶33

W.P.(C)No.3672 OF 2012

¶34

:: 2 ::

¶35

illegal. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner became entitled to be promoted as Overseer (Electrical) w.e.f. 15-11-1999. This Court directed that the seniority list should be prepared keeping in mind Rule 28(b)(i) Note VI that Meter Readers, who are carrying the higher scale of pay should be given preference to others, who belong to the feeder category. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Overseer (Electrical) with retrospective effect from 15-11-1999 and the petitioner is also entitled to all monetary benefits with effect from 23-7-2000. But the grievance of the petitioner is that when Ext.P5 was published, the petitioner was given promotion with retrospective effect from 15-11-1999, but monetary benefits with effect from 23-7-2000 was declined to him. Thus, Ext.P5 order to the extent it declined monetary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 23-7-2000 is illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

Prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

¶37

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 to the extent it declined monetary benefit to the petitioner with effect from 23-7-2000 consequent to his promotion as Overseer with retrospective effect from 15-11-1999; and quash the same;

¶38

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant all monetary benefits due to the petitioner with effect from 23-7-2000 including arrears of salary;

¶39

W.P.(C)No.3672 OF 2012

¶40

:: 3 ::

¶41

(iii) declare that Ext.P5 order to the extent it denies monetary benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 23-7-2000 is illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

(iv) issue such other and further reliefs as this honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶44

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB submits that as per the existing rules of the Board, in the case of promotions, monetary benefit will be given only from the date of officiating in the promotion post. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Overseer with retrospective notional effect from 15-11-1999 vide order dated 7-6-2011. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Hence writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment rendered in O.P.21479/00, under which the monetary benefit was directed to be paid from 23-7-2010 which is quoted below for ready reference:

¶46

“Therefore, in view of the above, I find merit in the claim put forward by the writ petitioners. They are entitled to be considered for promotion to the 25 percent quota set apart in the adre of Overseer (Electrical) in accordance with their qualification and seniority with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy. Therefore, I direct the first respondent to consider the petitioners for appointment to the

¶47

W.P.(C)No.3672 OF 2012

¶48

:: 4 ::

¶49

post of Overseer (Electrical) on the basis of the Rules then in force with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The petitioners who are found eligible will be given promotion with effect from the respective due dates. They will be entitled to all consequential benefits also including seniority except arrears of salary. The arrears of salary will be paid only from the date of filing of this original petition or from the date of eligibility whichever is later.”

¶50

I have gone through the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner denying all the contentions raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner who is promoted cannot be denied their lawful entitlement to the monetary benefits w.e.f. 23-7-2000, i.e., the date of the filing of O.P.No.2179/2000.

¶51

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court, which has attained finality, in my considered view, the respondents cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of this Court. Therefore, it is directed that all monetary benefits should be paid to the petitioners w.e.f. 23-7-2000 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in terms of the aforesaid judgment O.P.21479/2000. The impugned notification is modified accordingly.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶53

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶54

jes

Muraleedharan V.B. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan V.B. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haji C.Ummer Koya Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

D.Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs Director of Collegiate Education

Smt.Mani Vs the Spl. Tahsildar, Kasargode

P.R.Anilkumar Vs K.S.E.Board

Chavakkad Firka Co.Op.Rural Bank Ltd. Vs Asst.P.F.Commissioner

S.Ramachandran Pillai Vs the State of Kerala