Disposed

K.P.Pavithran v. K.S.E.B.

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016WP(C)/18735/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a petition by retired engineers seeking a step up in pay to match a junior (Muraleedharan) who received a higher grade and pay post-pay revision, creating an administrative anomaly while the petitioners did not. The Court noted the discrepancy and directed the lower authorities to rectify the pay and pension arrears.

What did the court decide?

The Board was directed to consider the issue, rectify the pay anomaly and grant arrears, and pass orders within three months.

K.P.Pavithran Vs K.S.E.B. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 18735 of 2005 (E)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. K.P.PAVITHRAN, JUNIOR ENGINEER(RETIRED), S.S.SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD, CHEVVA

¶8

KANNUR.

¶9

2. K.M.CHANDRAN,

¶10

JUNIOR ENGINEER(RETD), S.S.SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD

¶11

CHEVVA, KANNUR.

¶12

3. C.K.SUMARAJAN,

¶13

JUNIOR ENGINEER(RETD), S.S.SECTION, K.S.E. BOAFD

¶14

AZHEEKODE, KANNUR.

¶15

4. K.K.SADANANDAN,

¶16

JUNIOR ENGINER (RTD), TRANSMISSION DIVISION

¶17

K.S.E.BOARD, KANNUR.

¶18

5. V.T.SHADULI,

¶19

ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD), S.S.SECTION, K.S.E.BOARD

¶20

CHEVVA, KANNUR.

¶21

6. P.BHASKARAN,

¶22

SUB ENGINEER(HIGHER GRADE(RTD)

¶23

TRANSMISSION DIVISION, K.S.E.B., KANNUR.

¶24

7. T.SREEDHARAN,

¶25

ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD), S.S.SECTION, K.S.E.B.

¶26

MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶27

8. P.N.BALAKRISHNAN,

¶28

ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RETD), ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION

¶29

K.S.E.B., VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶30

9. K.JANARDHANAN,

¶31

ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RETIRED)

¶32

ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B, PAYANGADI

¶33

KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶34

...2

¶35

WP(C).No. 18735 of 2005 (E)

¶36

-2-

¶37

10. P.BALAKRISHNAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD), K.G.DIVISION, K.S.E.B KAKKAYAM.

¶38

11. T.KRISHNAN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(RTD) KSEB. ERECTION DIVISION, K.E.S. KAKKAYAM.

¶39

12. A.K.KUSHALAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RETD), ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE KSEB., KANNUR.

¶40

13. O.SURESH, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD), K.G.DIVISION, KSEB. KAKKAYAM.

¶41

14. ZAEM ENOCK, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RETD), T.C.DIVISION, K.S.E.B. CHAKKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶42

15. K.ASOKAN, JUNIOR ENGINEER(RTD), ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B., KOZHIKODE.

¶43

16. M.T.BHARATHAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD), ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B. KOLANCHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶44

17. E.P.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RTD), 220 KV TRANSMISSION SECTION K.S.E.BOARD, KANHIRODE, KANNUR.

¶45

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.M.BENNY JOSEPH

¶46

RESPONDENTS:

¶47

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶48

2. CHEIF ENGINEER(HRM), K.S.E.B., VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶49

3. CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM.

¶50

...3

¶51

WP(C).No. 18735 of 2005 (E)

¶52

-3-

¶53

4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KANNUR-2.

¶54

5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KANNUR-2.

¶55

6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYITHI BHAVANAM KANNUR-2.

¶56

7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶57

R1 TO R7 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB

¶58

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶59

WP(C).No. 18735 of 2005 (E)

¶60

APPENDIX

¶61

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶62

P1: TRUE PHOCOTOPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER DATED 23.2.2001, PSI/OPR/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶63

P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF SRI.M.MURALEEDHARAN, SUB ENGINEER

¶64

P3(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶65

P3(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶66

P3(C) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER

¶67

P3(D) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER

¶68

P3(E) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 5TH PETITIONER

¶69

P3(F) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 6TH PETITIONER

¶70

P3(G) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 7TH PETITIONER

¶71

P3(H) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 8TH PETITIONER

¶72

P3(I) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 9TH PETITIONER

¶73

P3(J) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 10TH PETITIONER

¶74

P3(K) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 11TH PETITIONER

¶75

P3(L) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 12TH PETITIONER

¶76

P3(M) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 13TH PETITIONER

¶77

...2

¶78

WP(C).No. 18735 of 2005 (E)

¶79

-2-

¶80

P3(N) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 14TH PETITIONER

¶81

P3(O) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 15TH PETITIONER

¶82

P3(P) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 16TH PETITIONER

¶83

P3(Q) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE 17TH PETITIONER

¶84

P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.7.2001 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT'

¶85

P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.7.2001 FILED BY THE 10TH PETITONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶86

P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.7.2001 FILED BY THE 13TH PETITONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶87

P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.EB8/454,456/2001 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.5.2002

¶88

P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB2/PAY FIXATION/2002-03/4666 DATED 25.1.2003

¶89

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5.10.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶90

P10: TRUE PHOCOPY OF THE BO (MF) NO.1439/2005 DATED 9.5.2005

¶91

P11: GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.8632/A2/2001/PD DATED 4.2.2002

¶92

P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.2578/6 DATED 19.10.1996

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶97

W.P.(C) No. 18735 of 2005 (E)

¶98

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2016

¶99

J U D G M E N T

¶100

The petitioners seek revision of pay, insofar as stepping up to that of one M. Muraleedharan, who is said to be junior to the petitioners herein. The pay revision orders are seen at Exts.P2 and P3 series. Ext.P2 & Ext.P3 series of orders were passed in accordance with the pay revision effected at Ext P1. The contention of the petitioners is based on Ext.P1, which by clause-7 specifically permitted step up of pay of the seniors to that of a junior, if the junior draws more pay.

¶101

The respondent-Board, however, contends that the petitioners had initially sought for such re-fixation on the basis of one another junior, by name K.L. Simon,

¶102

W.P.(C) No. 18735/2005

¶103

-2-

¶104

and the step up was granted to all the petitioners except the 11^th petitioner. It is also contented that Muraleedharan's pay was also stepped up to that of his junior and no consequential revision can be claimed by the petitioners since the juniors higher pay is not on account of the pay revision at Ext.P1. The present claim is not liable to be considered, is the contention.

¶105

The petitioners had taken up the issue before the authorities and then had approached this Court. This Court had directed filing of an appeal, which was filed and the same was rejected at Ext.P10 which is assailed herein. The petitioners contend that the petitioners are to be stepped up to the pay of Muraleedharan.

¶106

Ext.P2 is the pay granted to Muraleedharan, which indicates that Muraleedharan was given the

¶107

W.P.(C) No. 18735/2005

¶108

-3-

¶109

revision of pay and granted a higher grade in the revised scale. The petitioners, who were seniors, were granted such higher grade in the pre-revised scale and, hence, the petitioners also ought to have been granted step up to the pay granted to Muraleedharan.

¶110

A reading of Ext.P2 Pay Computation Order of the junior, on revision made, would indicate that the said employee was granted a fixation in the revised scale of pay, and the higher grade sanctioned; from a later date. Ext.P1 indicates that the pay revision was effective from and to all those who were in service as on 30.06.1998. The petitioners were also granted fixation in the revised scale; but, however, no grade pay was granted.

¶111

The mere fact that the petitioners were granted step up once, would not deviate from the fact

¶112

W.P.(C) No. 18735/2005

¶113

-4-

¶114

that the petitioners would be entitled to such step up if another junior is drawing more pay than a senior. Ext.P1 also permits that specifically. The contention that Muraleedharan was also granted a step up, which cannot be consequently claimed by the petitioners, also cannot be countenanced. The step up so granted is not evident from the order at Ext.P2. What is evident from Ext.P2 is a higher grade granted to the junior in the revised scale. A higher grade to a junior would have a cascading effect insofar as the seniors would be entitled to claim parity with the pay drawn by junior.

¶115

Here, this Court would only refer to Ext.P2 Pay Revision Order of Muraleedharan and Ext.P3(a) of the 1^st petitioner. On revision, effective from 01.07.1998, the petitioners were fixed in the higher pay and it is seen that as on 01.07.1998, the petitioners basic pay

¶116

W.P.(C) No. 18735/2005

¶117

-5-

¶118

was 11000+333 (special pay) and Muraleedharan's was 10590+239 (special pay). However, Muraleedharan was granted higher grade on 17.11.1998 and his basic pay became 11900+239 (special pay), while the petitioners remained at 11000+333 (special pay). There is definitely an anomaly on revision and this is due to the grade promotion having been granted to Muraleedharan from 17.11.1998. The petitioners cannot hence be denied step up, if such anomaly exists.

¶119

In such circumstance, there shall be a fresh consideration of the issue by the Board and if there is such an anomaly the same shall be rectified and the petitioner shall be paid the arrears also and given the required revision in computation of pension payment also. The 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders at any rate within a period of three months

¶120

W.P.(C) No. 18735/2005

¶121

-6-

¶122

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶123

The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶124

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶125

jjj 19/3/16

K.P.Pavithran v. K.S.E.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Pavithran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Thomas Koilparampil Vs Govt.Body of Rcc

State Planning Board Staff Co.Op.Society Vs State Planning Board

C.H.Usha Vs State of Kerala

Padmanabhan Namboodiri Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom

C.P.Sajan Vs the Chairman, Cape

Abhilash.S Vs Cochin Devaswom Board