K.N. Premodkumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016WP(C)/15489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's promotion to Sub Engineer. The single-judge court found discrepancies in the cited cadre strength and set aside the rejection order, directing the respondent to reconsider the claim through the proper authority after putting the petitioner on notice. (Disclaimer: The judgment provides no substantive law on whether the petitioner is en

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P6 set aside; Petitioner put on notice; Second Respondent directed to reconsider claim within two months and pass orders.

K.N. Premodkumar Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15489 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.N. PREMODKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.N.NARAYANAN NAIR, METER READER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 012.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

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

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

WPC NO 15489 OF 2012:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ENDT. ON EB8.GR3/LM02-03 DATED 31.01.2003.

¶19

EXT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EB4/METER READER/PROMOTION/ 20062007 DATED 04/10/2006.

¶20

EXT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.EB1/T & P/201011/CE/17.02.2011/377.

¶21

EXT P4. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11/10/2011 OF PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT P5. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.2318 OF 2012.

¶23

EXT P6. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EB2/SE (ELE)/WRIT PETITION 2318/2012 DATED 26.05.2012 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P7 NIL

¶25

RXT P8. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SMT.KALA KRISHNAN.

¶26

EXT P9. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 27/8/2013.

¶27

EXT P10.TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ENDT. ON EBI(A)/AE(ELE)/20%/PRO/2014 DATED 24/02/2014 OF CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM).

¶28

EXT P11.TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ENDT.ON EBI(A)/AE (ELE)/30%/PRO/2014 DATED 24/2/2014 OF CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM).

¶29

EXT P12.TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF ORDER NO.11/02/2015 IN WPC NO 6696/2013.

¶30

EXT P13. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EB2/SE (E)/WPC NO 6696/2013 DATED 4.12.2015.

¶31

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXT R2(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.02.2011.

¶33

EXT R2(B) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GRADATION LIST.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶38

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.15489 OF 2012

¶39

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th October, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Sub Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 11.10.2011 and to grant him all consequential benefits. Exhibit P6 order of rejection of his claim is also under challenge. The petitioner contends that his promotion as Meter Reader was delayed for no fault of his and he was ultimately granted the benefit of restoration of seniority in the cadre of Meter Reader and placed at the appropriate place in the seniority list. Thereafter, on reckoning his seniority, he was promoted as Sub Engineer by order dated 3.2.2011 along with several other eligible persons. However, taking note of the fact that he had not actually completed five years of service in the category of Meter Reader, he was reverted by order dated 17.2.2011. The petitioner completed five years of service as Meter Reader on 10.10.2011 and he immediately sought promotion as Sub Engineer. However, this was rejected by Exhibit P6 order stating that there existed no vacancy of Sub Engineer to accommodate him. In Exhibit P6 order, it is stated that the cadre strength of Sub Engineer under the 40% quota set apart for Meter Reader is 1758 and that there are 1769 persons working against

¶42

¶43

WP(C).15489/12

¶44

such cadre strength. It is therefore stated that the petitioner cannot be accommodated as Sub Engineer with effect from 11.10.2011.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board.

¶46

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, wherein it is contended that the sanctioned strength of Sub Engineer (Electrical) is 3246 and that the quota set apart for promotion of Meter Readers would go to 1218 against which 1769 persons are working. It is therefore contended that the petitioner would not have been accommodated.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been denied promotion as Meter Reader for no fault of his and had been granted the benefit of seniority by placing him in the appropriate place in the seniority list. It is further contended that similarly situated persons, who had approached this Court, had been granted the benefit of promotion by Exhibit P13 order dated 4.12.2015 in vacancies “identified in the order dated 3.2.2011”. It is therefore submitted that the contention that since there was no vacancy, the petitioner could not have been accommodated on 11.10.2011, cannot be accepted in view of the consideration of the claim of the similarly situated persons by Exhibit P13 order.

¶48

¶49

WP(C).15489/12

¶50

I have considered the rival contentions advanced.

¶51

It appears that the request of the petitioner for promotion as Sub Engineer was rejected on the sole ground that vacancies were not available in the quota set apart for promotion of Meter Readers as Sub Engineer as on 11.10.2011. However, much after the issuance of Exhibit P6 order of rejection, the claim put forward by other persons has been considered and they have been accommodated as Sub Engineers apparently in available vacancies. As far as the availability of vacancies is concerned, there is a clear discrepancy in the cadre strength mentioned in Exhibit P6 order as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner's claim by Exhibit P6 order is not sustainable.

¶52

In the result, Exhibit P6 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim raised by the petitioner on the basis of Exhibit P2 order of restoration of seniority as also Exhibit P13 order granting benefits to similarly situated persons. The 2^nd respondent shall take up the claim of the petitioner as projected in Exhibit P4 and pass orders on the same in the light of Exhibits P2 and P13 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before orders are passed, the petitioner shall be put on notice and

¶53

¶54

WP(C).15489/12

¶55

heard. The petitioner shall produce all relevant documents before the

¶56

2^nd respondent for consideration of his representation.

¶57

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶58

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶59

vgs29/10

K.N. Premodkumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N. Premodkumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Padmakumaran Nair Vs Kerala Film Development Corpn.& Another

Mini C.Sunny Vs State of Kerala

J.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Anitha Jose Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Viswanatha Kurup Vs State

K.J.Pushpa Vs State of Kerala