Allowed

E.C.Suresh v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC8 Jan 2018WP(C)/171/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, promoted notionally as Meter Readers via a High Court order but continuing in subordinate posts, approached this Court to challenge the rejection of their request for promotion to Sub Engineers. The Court held that lack of actual tenure could not bar their rights to consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 order quashed; petitioners entitled to promotion as Sub Engineers with effect from date of immediate juniors' promotion; consequential benefits directed to be granted within two months.

E.C.Suresh Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶3

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 18TH POUSHA, 1939

¶4

WP(C).No. 171 of 2015

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

1 E.C.SURESH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS, SUB ENGINEER (TRAINEE)/METER READER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THIRUVALLA, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

2 SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, S/O.T.D.JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, SUB ENGINEER (TRAINEE)/METER READER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THOTTABHAGAM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.

¶9

SRI.P.K.ANTONY SMT.C.R.SMITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),

¶13

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 004.

¶14

3. MR.HAREENDRAN.K.G., SUB ENGINEER, PULPPALLY ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 579.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, S.C

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 171 of 2015

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/01/2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.11715/2005 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT-P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/12/2011 IN WA NO.1047/2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT-P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB.3/M.R./CC(C) 1626/2012 & CC(C)261/2013 DATED 28/02/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 31/01/2004 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BO.NO.EB2/SE(ELE)/PRO/REV.(CCC) DATED 03/02/2011 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER NO.EB1/GL/2014-15/454 DATED 27/06/2014 BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/08/2014 IN W.P.(C)NO. 21992/2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT-P10:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB.2/SE(E)/WP.21992/2014 DATED 19/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P11:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES NOTIFIED AS B.O.NO.ARIII.36591/78 DATED 23/01/1981 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HIGH COURT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

P.V.ASHA J.

------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2018

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioners, who are presently working as

¶33

Overseers, have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 order by which their request for promotion as

¶34

Sub Engineer with effect from the date of promotion of their juniors was rejected.

¶35

Petitioners commenced their service as

¶36

Electricity Workers. On further promotion they were working as Lineman Gr.I. As per the Board order which was in force, 25% of the vacancies of Meter Readers

¶37

were to be filled up from among the lower categories including Lineman. Petitioners claim that they were eligible for promotion as Meter Readers in the year 2005. As promotions were not made, petitioners along

¶38

with others approached this Court filing W.P.

¶39

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶40

¶41

(C).No.11715 of 2005. This Court found that denial of promotion in accordance with the orders in force were illegal and by Ext.P1 judgment this Court directed the respondents to promote the petitioners to the category of Meter Readers with effect from the date on which their immediate juniors were promoted as per order dated 15.01.2005. It was also declared that petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority and emoluments. The respondents took up the matter in W.A.No.1047 of 2010. As per Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.12.2011, the writ appeal was disposed of, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directing the appellant-Board to consider the case of the petitioners herein, against the vacancies which arose subsequent to February, 2004. The directions in the judgments Exts.P1 and P2 were implemented only as per Ext.P3 order dated 28.02.2014. In Ext.P3 order, the Board found that there were 21 vacancies of Meter Readers in 25% in-

¶42

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶43

¶44

service quota as on 26.04.2005. Hence, it was found that petitioners were eligible for promotion to the cadre of Meter Readers based on their seniority and technical qualification. Accordingly promotions were granted notionally with effect from 26.04.2005 in

¶45

the case of the petitioners.

¶46

Petitioners submitted that in the mean

¶47

time, several Meter Readers were granted promotion to the post of Sub Engineers in the 60% quota from among the Meter Readers. Producing Ext.P4 Circular publishing the gradation list of Meter Readers, petitioners pointed out that several persons who got promotion as Meter Readers subsequent to their date of promotion were promoted as Sub Engineers. As per Ext.P5 order dated 03.02.2011, the respondents granted promotion to Meter Readers as Sub Engineers (Electrical) under the 50% quota. In this order, Shri S.Rasheed -Sl.No.723 in Ext.P4 list, was one,

¶48

who was promoted as Meter Reader on 19.04.2005 and

¶49

Sl.No.724, was promoted as Meter Reader on

¶50

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶51

¶52

14.05.2005. Therefore, the petitioners claimed that they were entitled to be promoted as Sub Engineers in between Sl.Nos.723 and 724, in case promotions were granted normally. Pointing out this, petitioners submitted Exts.P6 and P7 representations before the second respondent. Thereafter, they approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.21992 of 2014, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P9 judgment, directing the respondents to consider the representations after hearing the petitioners. Ext.P10 is the order thereafter issued by the second respondent, rejecting their request on the ground that the promotions granted to them from 26.04.2015 were only notional. It was further stated that even though they were promoted as Meter Readers, they had not accepted the promotions till that date and were continuing as Overseers and as Sub Engineer trainees. It is further stated that in the channel of promotion in 40% quota from Meter Readers to Sub Engineers, the minimum of 5 years of experience in

¶53

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶54

¶55

the cadre of Meter Reader is mandatory. It was stated that petitioners who have not joined the cadre of Meter Reader and did not acquire the mandatory experience as Meter Readers till that date, cannot be promoted as Sub Engineers.

¶56

Petitioners filed the writ petition at that stage, challenging Ext.P10 order and seeking promotion with effect from 03.02.2011.

¶57

The respondents filed counter affidavit

¶58

reiterating the reasons stated in Ext.P10 order. It was stated that petitioners were only working as Overseers/Sub Engineer Trainees; even though petitioners were promoted as Meter Readers, in compliance of directions in the judgment they did not accept promotion or join that post; they had been continuing in the post of Overseers from 2006 onwards. It is further stated that as per the Board Order dated 23.01.1981, 5 years experience in the

¶59

cadre of Meter Reader is mandatory for promotion as Sub Engineer in the 40% quota. As the petitioners

¶60

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶61

¶62

did not join the post of Meter Readers and were holding the post of Overseers they were not entitled to promotion to the cadre of Sub Engineers. It was stated that the petitioners would be considered for promotion as Sub Engineer with respect to their seniority in the cadre of Overseers as and when vacancy arise in the 20% quota.

¶63

Heard Shri Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Aneetha A.G. and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶64

In Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, this Court

¶65

found that petitioners were denied their legitimate promotion to the post of Meter Readers which was due to them against the vacancies which arose subsequent to February 2004. It was in compliance of those judgments and in recognition of their right for promotion that the respondents issued Ext.P3 order promoting the petitioners notionally from 26.04.2005. In case the right thing was done at the right time in the year 2005, they could have worked

¶66

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶67

¶68

as Meter Readers right from that date, as in the case of those who got promotion as per Ext.P5 order. When Ext.P5 order was issued granting promotion to those who got appointment as Meter Readers even on 03.01.2006 and the petitioners immediate junior was at Sl.No.724 based on his promotion as Meter Reader with effect from 14.05.2005, there is no justification in denying the petitioners promotion with effect from the date of promotion of their immediate juniors/those who got promotion subsequent to the date with effect from which petitioners were promoted. It is true that petitioners did not have actual experience as Meter Readers; but petitioners could have gained such experience in case they were rightly promoted as Meter Readers at the relevant time. When this Court found their eligibility for promotion as Meter Readers and the respondents issued orders, further promotion which is also a consequential benefit based on Ext.P1 judgment cannot be denied to them on the ground that they did

¶69

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶70

¶71

not have actual experience as Meter Readers. Moreover, the promotion to the post of Meter Readers does not require any further test qualification or any further selection proceedings. These promotions are made purely on the basis of the seniority in the category of Meter readers. It is pertinent to note that they were allowed to work as Sub Engineer Trainees in the absence of persons to man the post of Sub Engineers. The fact that petitioners did not join duty as Meter Readers consequent to Ext.P3 order cannot be a reason for denying them promotion, because even before their promotion as Meter Readers, Ext.P5 order promoting their juniors was already issued.

¶72

In the above circumstances, Ext.P10 order is quashed. It is declared that petitioners would be entitled to be promoted as Sub Engineers with effect from the date on which their immediate junior was promoted, treating them as having been placed in between 723 and 724 in Ext.P5. There shall be a

¶73

W.P.(C).No.171 of 2015

¶74

¶75

direction to the respondents to grant the petitioners all the consequential benefits also after granting them promotion as Sub Engineers. This shall be done within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶78

E.C.Suresh v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.C.Suresh 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

Bijithlal Thekkedath Vs Dr. Usha Titus

Kaladevi M.P Vs Smt. Mini S

Jessy Alexander Vs Biju Prabhakar

Janett.C.B Vs Mallika.N.R

P.P. Vimala Vs State of Kerala

Priya Nair Vs Union of India