Disposed

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Gopinadhan Nair P.S

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016WA/46/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the Kerala State Electricity Board challenged a Single Judge order applying sit back principles. The single judge set aside a promotion cancellation order but excluded leave period for terminal benefits. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's equitable dispensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; the impugned judgment of the Single Court is upheld.

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Gopinadhan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

WA.No. 46 of 2016 () IN WP(C).1706/2013

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1706/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 31-07-2015

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶11

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

GOPINADHAN NAIR P.S ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, T.M.R DIVISION, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 690 251.

¶15

R. BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R. BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR R. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶18

W.A. No. 46 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2016.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dama Seshadri Naidu,J.

¶22

This is an appeal filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, the employer, against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1706 of 2013.

¶23

The facts in brief are that the first respondent, the employee, joined the service as Sub Engineer on 14.08.1991 having been recruited through the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC). Before he could complete his probation, he had been sanctioned leave without allowance altogether for ten years. Indisputably, the leave was sanctioned with a condition that the leave period would be excluded from his service and he should rejoin as a new entrant. Accordingly, in the course of time, the first respondent rejoined the service on 29.07.2002 and, soon, completed his probation.

¶24

At a later point in time, when the Board effected promotion from the cadre of Sub Engineer to the cadre of Assistant Engineer, it considered the first respondent's claim and promoted him with effect from 17.06.2003. Later, on 20.01.2011, the Board further promoted first respondent as Assistant Executive Engineer. While he was serving as

¶25

W.A. No.46/2016 -2-

¶26

Assistant Executive Engineer, on 10.10.2012, the Board issued a notice, ostensibly having realised that the first respondent had been promoted taking into account his leave period as well. Eventually, the Board passed Ext.P11 order cancelling the promotion and reverting him to the post of Sub Engineer.

¶27

Aggrieved, the first respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 1706 of 2013 and, while it was pending, he retired from service on 31.05.2013 on his attaining the age of superannuation. Eventually, the learned single Judge rendered the judgment on 31.07.2015 holding that it is a fit case to apply the principle of 'sit back' and accordingly set aside Ext.P11 order with a modification that, for reckoning the first respondent's terminal benefits, his service on leave—between 28.07.1992 and 29.07.2002— should not be counted. Assailing the judgment in question, the Board has come in appeal before us.

¶28

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Board and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the record.

¶29

Indeed, the facts are not in dispute, and the issue lies in a narrow compass. By any reckoning, the Board ought to have excluded the period when the first respondent was on leave. It is, nevertheless, not the case of the Board that it had reckoned the period based on any misrepresentation

¶30

W.A. No.46/2016 -3-

¶31

by the first respondent, if it was a mistake by the Board to let the respondent have not one promotion but two in a period of about a decade, the respondent could not be blamed for that.

¶32

It eventually realised its mistake in 2012 and issued Ext.P11 proceedings in 2013. As seen from the record, the first respondent having obtained two promotions retired soon thereafter. In our considered view, the learned single Judge has justly applied the principle of 'sit back' and has held that after an inordinate length of time unsettling things would be inequitable. As an equitable dispensation, the learned single Judge has excluded the period on leave for terminal benefits.

¶33

In the facts and circumstances, we see no illegality in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

¶34

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶35

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶36

¶37

W.A. No.46/2016 -4-

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Gopinadhan Nair P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Gopinadhan Nair P.S

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S.Coconut Palm Beach Garden

M/S.Transworld Hire Purchase India Ltd. Vs the Settlement Commission

State of Kerala Vs K.Pushpadas

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur Vs M/S.Kallada Wine, Thrissur

K.Sameer Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Prabhakaran Kartha Vs Kerala State Electricity Board