Allowed

Rajan.T.S v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC8 Feb 2018WP(C)/332/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a time bound higher grade promotion. Holding that feeder category experience is not required for grade promotion, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed restoration of the benefit with consequential pensionary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Ext.P1 order restored; consequential benefits including pension computation to be granted within three months.

Rajan.T.S Vs Kerala Water Authority — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 19TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 332 of 2017 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

RAJAN.T.S, AGED 60, S/O.SANKURU TA, D'MAN Gr-II(RETD.) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, RESIDING AT "THIYYAKKATTIL HOUSE" KARAMUCK, KANDASSANKADAVU.P.O. THRISSUR-680 613.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.T.SAILESH KUMAR SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI SRI.SARATH S. JANARDANAN.

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM 695 033

¶11

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 033.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, NATTIKA, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT DIVISION, NATTIKA, THRISSUR-680 614.

¶13

4. ACCOUNT GENERAL(A&E), INDIAN AUDIT & ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE ACOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

R1 - R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC. R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RON BASTIAN.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Hr.....

¶18

WP(C).No. 332 of 2017 (N)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.E1-599/09 DATED 20/7/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.E1-599/09 DATED 03.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2009 IN WP(C)NO.19688 OF 2007 IN THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.E1-599/09 DATED 9.3.2016 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE CIRCLE OFFICE VIDE ENDT. NO KWA/PH/TSR/186/2012 DATED 18-10-2012.

// TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE.

Hr.....

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.332 of 2017-N

¶32

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2018

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner, who retired from service while working as Draftsman Gr.II on 30.04.2012, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order by which the time bound higher grade promotion granted to him as per Ext.P1 order on 20.7.2012 was cancelled on the ground that he did not have the required service in the feeder category of Draftsman Grade-I, even though he was having the requisite educational qualification.

¶35

The petitioner submits that even though he had approached

¶36

various authorities requesting for restoration of the benefits in Ext.P1, the respondents did not take any positive action. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 judgment in which an identical case was decided by this Court when another Draftsman Gr.II, who was denied the time bound higher grade as in the case of the petitioner, had approached this Court. This Court held that if there is a promotion post and the employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post, they will be entitled to have the higher grade granted

¶37

¶38

W.P(C) No.332 of 2017-N

¶39

and that it is not stipulated that the post held by the employee should be one which is in the feeder category for promotion. The petitioner was granted third time bound higher grade as per Ext.P1 order on 20.7.2012 taking note of the fact that the petitioner was granted the first time bound higher grade on completion of 10 years w.e.f 11.1.1999. It is pointed out that the petitioner was granted the second time bound higher grade.

¶40

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was granted first time bound higher grade on completion of 10 years of service w.e.f 11.9.1999, second higher grade w.e.f 14.1.2007 on completion of 18 years and third time bound higher grade w.e.f 1.3.2011 on completion of 22 years of service. The petitioner entered service on 11.1.1989 as Overseer Gr.III. His services were regularised w.e.f 19.09.1990. The second time bound higher grade was granted in the scale of pay of Rs.4710-7710 in the scale of Draftsman Gr.I. It is also stated that the petitioner was promoted as Draftsman Gr.II on 29.02.2008. The respondents have stated that the petitioner did not have the requisite experience for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer though he was having the academic qualification.

¶41

Having considered the contentions on both sides, it is seen that

¶42

the third higher grade was granted to the petitioner in the pay scale of

¶43

W.P(C) No.332 of 2017-N 3

¶44

Assistant Engineer. The qualification required for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is as prescribed in the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, which read as follows:

¶45

“(1) He has rendered service under Government for a total period of not less than 3 years and possess the qualification mentioned in item (i) or in Section ! In item (ii) of the Annexure, or

¶46

(2) He has rendered service under the Government for a total period of not less than 7 years and possesses any diploma specified in section B in item (ii) of the Annexure”

¶47

Therefore, the disqualification found by the respondents for granting 3^rd higher grade is that the petitioner did not have 3 years service in the post of Draftsman Gr.II.

¶48

This Court has already found in Ext.P3 judgment in W.P(c).No.19688/2007 that for granting time bound higher grade requisite experience in the feeder category is not necessary.

¶49

Even otherwise the purpose of granting time bound higher grade to the employees is to avoid stagnation to employees remaining in entry grade for want of sufficient promotional avenues. By way of time bound higher grades, they are granted upgradation by granting higher scale of pay on completion of requisite number of years of service, as provided in

¶50

¶51

W.P(C) No.332 of 2017-N

¶52

the orders issued by Government/respondents from time to time. When such grade promotion is granted, the respondents cannot insist the requisite number of years of service in a particular post in regular line of promotion prescribed in the special rules for regular promotion. Qualification for the promotion post for the purpose of grade promotion can only be the educational/technical qualification, otherwise the very purpose behind introduction of time bound higher grade would be defeated.

¶53

In the above circumstances, Ext.P2 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to restore Ext.P1 order and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner's pensionary benefits shall be recomputed based on the restoration of the higher grade as per Ext.P1. Pensionary benefits shall be refixed and all consequential benefits shall be granted to the petitioner, within a period of three months.

¶54

The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶57

rtr/

Rajan.T.S v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan.T.S v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathyanirmala P. Vs Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

Noufal D Vs the Director General Crpf

Rajan C.A. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

K.a.Baby Vs Coir Board

Joshi. K.R. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

M.P.Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala