Disposed

M.K.Ramesh v. P.Babu

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021OP(KAT)/198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Notionally promoted Overseers were denied salary arrears for periods when they had not performed the higher duties. The Court upheld that denial but directed consideration of representations for notional pay fixation and consequential pension revision, preferably within six weeks, and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit representations for notional pay fixation and pension revision; consideration directed preferably within six weeks, with pensionary arrears payable if allowed.

M.K.Ramesh Vs P.Babu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 58/2014 DATED 28-06-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS 2 AND 5 IN OA:

¶10

1 M.K.RAMESH S/O.M.AKUMARAN, OVERSEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, (RETD SUB ENGINEER), RESIDING AT KUMAR NIVAS, ARIYANNOOR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680102

¶11

2 T.S.SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, OVERSEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR (NOW WORKING AS SUB - ENGINEER), RESIDING AT THANNIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARAPPUZHA PO, ERNAKULAM PIN-683517

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶13

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 1,3,4 AND 6 AND RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 P.BABU S/O.KUNJAN, OVERSEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR(RETD) RESIDING AT PARUTHIPATTA HOUSE, MANJERI PO, MALAPPURAM PIN676121

¶15

2 FRANCIS K.JOSE S/O.K.P.JOSE, OVERSSER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR,(RETD) RESIDING AT KOMBAN HOUSE, KANDASSANKADAVU PO, THRISSUR, PIN680613

¶16

3 N.S.SEBASTIAN, S/O.SCARIA, OVERSEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR(RETD) CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT KOOVAKKAL THADATHIL HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA.PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

4 P.V.SUKUMARAB, S/O.K.VELAYUDHAN,(RETD) OVERSSER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT PANACHAMOOTTIL VADAKETHIL HOUSE, IVARKKALA WEST, NORTH PATHANAPURAM.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691553

¶20

5 THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPP. MUSEUM, PUBLIC OFFICE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033

¶21

6 THE THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR PIN-680001

¶22

R5-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD

¶23

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).170/2020, THE COURT ON 02-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶31

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶32

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020

¶33

ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 58/2014 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDL.BENCH, EKM)

¶34

PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS No.3 & 4:

¶35

1 FRANCIS.K.JOSE AGED 59 YEARS S/O.K.P.JOSE, RETIRED SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001, NOW RESIDING AT KOMBAN HOUSE, KANDASSANKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680613.

¶36

2 N.S.SEBASTIAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.SCARIA, RETIRED OVERSEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS 1,2,5& 6 AND RESPONDENTS:

¶37

1 P.BABU AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, RETIRED SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001, NOW RESIDING AT PARUTHIPATTA HOUSE, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676121.

¶38

2 M.K.RAMESH, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.M.A.KUMARAN, RETIRED SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001, NOW RESIDING AT KUMAR NIVAS, ARIYANNOOR P.O., THRISSUR, KERALA-680102.

¶39

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

3 T.S.SEBASTIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001, NOW RESIDING AT THANNIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARAPPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683517.

¶42

4 P.V.SUKUMARAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.K.VELAYUDHAN, RETIRED OVERSEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001, NOW RESIDING AT PANACHAMOOTTIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, IVARKKALA WEST, NORTH PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA-691553.

¶43

5 THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, PUBLIC OFFICE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033.

¶44

6 THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, KERALA-680001.

¶45

BY ADV.

¶46

R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD R6 BY ADV. SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA SRI.B.VINOD, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶47

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).198/2020, THE COURT ON 02-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.

¶51

===========================

¶52

O.P (KAT) No.198 of 2020

¶53

[ arising out of the order dated 28.06.2019 in O.A (Ekm) No.58/2014 on the file of the KAT, Tvm. Bench ] &

¶54

O.P (KAT) No.170 of 2020

¶55

[ arising out of the order dated 28.06.2019 in O.A (Ekm) No.58/2014 on the file of the KAT, Tvm. Bench (Addl. Bench, Ekm. ]

¶56

===========================

¶57

Dated this the 02^nd day of March, 2021

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶60

The prayers in O.P (KAT) No.198/2020 are as follows (see page

¶61

No.8 of the paper book of that O.P) :

¶62

“................. to allow the Original Petition (KAT) by setting aside Ext.P1 order dated 28.6.2019 in OP(KAT) No.58/2014 on the files of the Hon'ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, and further directs the official respondents to grant all consequential benefits including the arrears, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the original petition (KAT).”

¶63

The prayers in O.P (KAT) No.170/2020 are as follows (see

¶64

page Nos.10 & 11 of the paper book of that O.P) :

¶65

"i) To call for the records leading to Annexure-A10 in O.A.(EKM) No.58/2014 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (Additional Bench, Ernakulam) and set aside the Ext.P2 order;

¶66

ii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to get certificate of pay from the date of their notional promotion in the cadre of Overseer as shown in the seniority list annexed as Annexure-A6.

¶67

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶68

¶69

iii) Issue direction to the respondents to revise the pay and allowances of the applicants with effect from the date of their actual promotion to the post of Overseer and also give the arrears of pay and other allowances from the date of their actual promotion to the post of Overseer.

¶70

iv) To issue necessary direction to the 5^th and 6^th respondents to grant promotion with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits to the petitioners as on 21.01.1996 to the 1^st petitioner and on 16.1.2003 to the 2^nd petitioner

¶71

And

¶72

v) Issue any such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice."

¶73

Heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned Advocate appearing for the

¶74

petitioners in O.P (KAT) No.198/2020 / applicant Nos.2 & 5 in the O.A, Sri.E.D.George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P(KAT) No.170/2020 / applicant Nos.3 & 4 in the O.A, Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent No.5 in this O.P / the 1^st respondent in the O.A and Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval, learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Municipal Corporation appearing for the 6^th respondent in the O.P / 2^nd respondent in the O.A. Two out of the six original applicants in the O.A have not chosen to challenge the impugned final order of the Tribunal by filing original petitions. Moreover, contesting respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/applicant Nos.1, 3, 4 & 6 in the O.A do not have any conflicting interest with the petitioners herein, who are also applicants and hence,

¶75

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶76

¶77

notices to contesting respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the O.P will stand dispensed with.

¶78

The two petitioners in O.P(KAT) No.198/2020 and the two petitioners in O.P(KAT)No.170/2020 are four among the eight applicants in the abovesaid Ext.P-2 O.A (Ekm) No.58/2014 on the file of the KAT, Ernakulam Bench. As indicated hereinabove, only applicants 2, 5 and 3 & 4 have challenged the impugned Ext.P-2 final order rendered by the Tribunal in the said O.A on 19.01.2013 by filing these two original petitions. Contesting respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the remaining applicants viz., applicants 1, 3, 4 & 6 have not chosen to challenge the said impugned final order rendered by the Tribunal in this case.

¶79

The prayers in Ext.P-2 original application, O.A (Ekm) No.58/2014 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are as follows (see page Nos.34 & 35 of this paper book) :

¶80

“i. Call for the records leading to Annexure A-10 and set aside the same.

¶81

ii. Issue a declaration that the applicants are entitled to get fixation of pay from the date of their notional promotion in the cadre of Overseer as shown in the seniority list annexed to Annexure A-6 Affidavit.

¶82

iii. Issue a direction to the respondents to revise the pay and other allowances of the applicants in the cadre of Overseer on the basis of the

¶83

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶84

¶85

notional promotion given to them as per the seniority list annexed to Annexure A-6.

¶86

iv. Issue a direction to the respondents to revise the pay and allowances of the applicants with effect from the date of their actual promotion to the post of Overseer and also give the arrears of pay and other allowances from the date of their actual promotion to the post of Overseer.

¶87

And

¶88

v. Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶89

The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered Ext.P-2 final order dated 28.06.2019 in the said O.A (Ekm) No.58/2014, wherein the main pleas of the applicants for grant of arrears of pay and allowances consequent to their notional promotion to the post of overseer have been denied, etc. and even all other consequential benefits therefrom have also been denied. It is the abovesaid impugned final order rendered by the Tribunal at Ext.P-2 that is under challenge in these original petitions. The 5^th respondent has filed an affidavit dated 05.02.2021 and it is seen that a tabular column has been given showing the details of service particulars of each of the six original applicants in these cases. The said tabular column as given on para No.6 on internal page No.4 of the said affidavit, reads as follows:

¶90

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶91

¶92

Sl.No.	Name	Date of joining as Lasker	Date of declaration of probation	Date of promotion as Lineman Gr.II	Date of promotion as Lineman Gr.I	Date of promotion as Overseer
1	Francis K.Jose	22.11.94	21.05.95	1.11.98	7.6.2000	5.4.10
2	N.S.Sebastian	21.10.95	22.04.96	4.8.04	13.02.06	5.4.10
3	M.K.Ramesh	1.11.1994	30.04.95	24.12.97	04.08.04	5.4.10
4	T.S.Sebastian	13.08.93	12.02.94	22.6.95	24.12.98	26.11.07
5	P.Babu	6.7.94	5.1.95	6.3.97	4.8.04	5.4.10
6	P.V.Sukumaran	10.4.95	9.10.95	6.9.2000	1.4.05	5.4.10

¶93

Six applicants in the above O.A, which is inclusive of the four original petitioners herein and two out of the four contesting respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, were initially recruited as Lasker in the Electricity Wing/Department of the respondent-Thrissur Municipal Corporation, which is evident from the above tabular details, it is seen that the six original applicants, viz., Francis George, N.S.Sebastian, M.K.Ramesh, T.S.Sebastian, P.Babu and P.V.Sukumaran have joined service as Lasker on 22.11.1994, 21.10.1995, 01.11.1994, 13.08.1993, 06.07.1994 & 10.04.1995 respectively and their probation in the said entry level post of Lasker has been successfully declared on 21.05.1995, 22.04.1996, 30.04.1995, 12.02.1994, 05.01.1995 & 09.10.1995 respectively. Thereafter, it appears from the pleadings of the respondent-Director of

¶94

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶95

¶96

Urban Affairs that the said six original applicants have been promoted to the next higher grade category post of Lineman Gr.II and then promoted to the next higher grade category post of Lineman Gr.I. The next promotion post thereafter is Overseer. From the abovesaid affidavit filed by the respondent-Director of Urban Affairs, it is seen that the probation is insisted only for the entry level post of Lasker and not for the further post of Lineman Gr.II, Lineman Gr.I, etc. The dispute involved in the present case is regarding the promotion to the said post of Overseer. It is seen that the service conditions of the employees like the original applicants, who were serving in the electricity wing of Thrissur Municipal Corporation, is broadly on the basis of staff pattern of the Kerala State Electricity Board. It is common ground that the ratio for filling up the post of Overseer, Electrical is fixed as 40:60 as between ITI qualified hands and such non-qualified hands and there is a further division in the quota for the qualified ITI hands. It is the case of the original applicants that the ratio for promotion to the post of Overseer as between the ITI qualified and non-ITI qualified hands. In the ratio of 40:60 has been blatantly violated by the Department while effecting promotion to the said category of Overseers and that many unqualified

¶97

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶98

¶99

ITI hands were given promotions to the post of Overseer, without strictly observing the ratio of 40:60 to be maintained and much in excess of the 60% quota set apart for the non-qualified hands. This resulted in litigative proceedings before this Court, which resulted in Annexure-A3 judgment dated 23.12.2009 in W.P(C)No.37356/2009, wherein directions were issued to ensure that promotions to the post of Overseer were properly reviewed. This in turn give rise to Annexure-A4 order dated 31.03.2009 was issued by the respondent-Director of Urban Affairs, whereby the applicants were promoted to the post of Overseer. This was later implemented by the respondents-Secretary of the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, as per Annexure-A5 dated 05.04.2010. Further, it appears that by so promoting qualified ITI hands were similarly situated as the original applicant. It is further disclosed that while so promoting qualified ITI hands to the post of Overseer by implementing the post for review, about six unqualified hands, who were early promoted in violation of the ratio, happened to be reverted to the post of Lineman Gr.I Further, it appears that the said reverted nonqualified hands had challenged the said order of reversion by initiating writ proceedings which also resulted in contempt proceedings before

¶100

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶101

¶102

this Court, ultimately Annexure-A6 order dated 31.01.2011 was issued by the respondent-Director of Urban Affairs, which was produced along with an affidavit filed in the abovesaid contempt petition. It appears that the six original applicants have been given promotion to the post of Overseer with effect from 21.01.1996, 16.02.1999, 30.04.1995, 07.10.1994, 05.01.1995, 26.10.1996 respectively. The case set up by the Original Applicants in the instant Ext.P-2 O.A, as can be seen from para No.4 therein is that they are also entitled for arrears in the pay and allowances, consequent to their promotion and that apart from the notional benefits of fixation of pay and other benefits. Annexure-A7 dated 10.12.2010 is the representation filed by the original applicants before the respondent-The Director of Urban Affairs in that regard.

¶103

This Court had later rendered a judgment dated 22.07.2011 in W.P(C)No.19189/2011 filed by the applicants herein, directing considerations of the said representation. This ultimately resulted in the impugned Annexure-A9 proceedings dated 25.10.2012 issued by the respondent-Director of Urban Affairs, rejecting the said plea of the original applicants in the matter of grant of arrears of pay and allowances, mainly on the ground that the promoted post of Overseer

¶104

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶105

¶106

carry with heavy duties and responsibilities, which was distinct from the duties and responsibilities discharged in the lower feeder category post of Lineman Gr.I and further that, since the original applicants have not actually discharged the duties and functions in the said promoted post from the notionally assigned grades, there is no question of granting arrears of pay and allowances.

¶107

It is this order at Annexure-A10 that is essentially under challenge in the original application, which has been filed with the aforementioned prayers. The Tribunal in para No.7 of internal page Nos.6 & 7 of the impugned Ext.P1 final order (see page Nos.17 & 18 of this paper book) as referred to the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.37661/2009, wherein directions were issued by this Court to the Departmental authorities to conduct review of promotion to the post of Overseer, to ascertain the matter regarding the violation of the ratio. It has been noted therein that so long as the ratio is in force, the respondents are bound to maintain the ratio and that the only direction that is necessary in that case is that the respondents therein shall ensure in the matter of promotion to the post of Overseer, the ratio between 40:60, which is qualified and unqualified Lineman Gr.I on the feeder

¶108

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶109

¶110

category, will be maintained and necessary review proceedings will be undertaken and orders pass thereon, without delay.

¶111

The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has conclusively held in the impugned Ext.P-1 final order that what has been directed by this Court in the abovesaid judgment is only to conduct by the review to ascertain the matters relative to the violation of the ratio of 40:60 as between qualified hands and non-qualified hands and nothing more. Moreover, the Tribunal has also noted the specific stand of the respondent-departmental authorities that none of the original applicants have performed duties in the higher category post of Overseer that involved substantial change of duties and responsibilities compared to the lower feeder category post of Lineman Gr.I. It is also to be noted that the factual case set up by the respondent authorities is that none of the original applicants had infact discharged the duties and responsibilities in the promoted post of Overseer, though they were granted the notional promotion from the notionally assigned grades in the year 1995, as referred to hereinabove.

¶112

The learned Senior Government Pleader has also pointed out that statutory provisions has also been engrafted in Rule 23 of Part I

¶113

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶114

¶115

KSR , whereby actual arrears and pay cannot be claimed in promotion posts involving change of duties and responsibilities, especially when promotion has been given only on notional basis, since the incumbents may not have actually discharged the changed duties and functions in such promotion posts. It is on this basis the Tribunal has held that the main claim of the original applicants for grant of actual arrears of pay and allowance consequent to the notional promotion to the post of Overseer cannot be granted.

¶116

After hearing both sides, we are fully in concurrence with the said considered view tendered by the Tribunal in the matter that the applicants are not entitled for the claim of arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of notional promotion to the post of Overseer in as much as there is substantial change of duties and responsibilities in the promotion post and the applicants have not discharged their duties and responsibilities on account of their notional promotion for the period in question.

¶117

Hence, we are not in a position to accept the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the original petitioners in these cases that the view tendered the Tribunal is illegal and perverse

¶118

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶119

¶120

and that the original applicants are legally entitled for actual arrears of pay and allowances even though they have been promoted only on notional basis to the higher category post of Overseer and even though there is change of duties and responsibilities in the said promoted post. After hearing both sides we are of the considered view that the basic reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P1 final order dated 28.06.2019 in O.A.(EKM) No.58/2014 cannot be said to be legally faulty, perverse or illegal

¶121

However, the learned Advocates appearing for the original petitioners would submit that the Tribunal has only mainly considered the main plea for arrears of pay and allowances and has not considered the other prayers in the OA which are for fixation of pay based on the said notional promotion. To that, it appears that the respondent - Director of Urban Affairs has clearly stated in paragraph No.5 on page No.3 of the abovesaid affidavit dated 05.02.2021 filed by him in OP (KAT) No.198 of 2020 that as regards the claims of the petitioners for fixation of pay from the notional promoted dates, the said relief is not denied as per the the impugned Annexure-A10 rejection order dated 30.03.2013. Sri.B.Vinod , learned Senior Government Pleader appearing

¶122

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶123

¶124

for the official respondent would fairly submit that as can be seen from the averment in paragraph No.5 on page No.3 of the abovesaid affidavit dated 05.02.2021 filed by the respondent Director of Urban Affairs in O.P.(KAT) No.198 of 2020, the impugned rejection order, Annexure A10 has only dealt with the main claim for actual arrears of pay and allowances in the promotion post of Overseer and that the abovesaid averment would make it clear that the other relief of pay fixation and notional benefits, is not denied by Annexure-A10 rejection order etc. Further Sri.B.Vinod , learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent would also fairly submit on the basis of instructions that if a representation is duly filed by the petitioners herein seeking their claim for pay re-fixation on the basis of the notional promotion to the post of Overseer Grade I, and also to seek consequential benefits of arrears in pensionary benefits etc. then the said plea would certainly be considered by the respondent, Director of Urban Affairs in accordance with law, provided such plea has not so far been considered and rejected. The said fair submission made on behalf of the respondent Director of Urban Affairs is placed on record.

¶125

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶126

¶127

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners will be at liberty to file representation before the respondent Director of Urban Affairs and copy thereof should also be given to respondent Secretary of the Thrissur Municipal Corporation, detailing out their service particulars and also the days on which they have been actually promoted in the post of Overseer and the dates on which they got notional promotion and also the dates on which they have retired, in case they have so far retired and may make out the case for pay fixation on the basis of such notional promotion to the post of Overseer as well as consequential re-fixation in the last pay drawn by the them at the time of their retirement and the consequential revision of pensionary benefits including pension, gratuity etc. and such claim for pay fixation on the basis of notional promotion in the post of Overseer as well as the consequential revision of pensionary benefits and actual arrears of revised pensionary benefits should be duly considered by the respondent Director of Urban Affairs and orders passed thereon, without much delay, preferably within six weeks from the date of filing of such representation. If the said plea is allowed, then certainly steps should be taken by the respondent Director of Urban Affairs and the respondent Secretary to Thrissur Municipal Corporation to ensure that the revised pensionary benefits of the petitioners are duly revised and arrears of

¶128

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶129

¶130

such revised pensionary benefits should also be paid to them, without any further delay.

¶131

With these observations and directions, the above original petitions will stand disposed of.

¶132

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶133

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶134

vgd /scs

¶135

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶136

¶137

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 198/2020

¶138

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶139

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 IN OA (EKM) NO.58/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO.58/2014 DATED 19.1.2014 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P2(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE BOARD LETTER NO.PSI/84/88 DATED 29.3.1989 EXHIBIT P2(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E43337/03 DATED 24.08.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPENDING SENIORITY LIST OF OVERSEERS WHO WERE PROMOTED AFTER 19.11.1990 EXHIBIT P2(A2)(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNX.A2. EXHIBIT P2(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2009 IN WP(C) 37356/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P2(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2010 PROMOTING THE APPLICANTS TO THE POST OF OVERSEERS. EXHIBIT P2(A4)(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF AXN.A4 EXHIBIT P2(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IMPLEMENTING ANNEXURE A4 ORDER EXHIBIT P2(A5)(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNX.A5 EXHIBIT P2(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH THE SENIORITY LIST OF OVERSEERS

¶140

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶141

¶142

EXHIBIT P2(A6)(A)	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANX A6
EXHIBIT P2(A7)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.12.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE APPLICANTS WHO GOT PROMOTION AS PER ANNEXURE-A4 ORDER
EXHIBIT P2(A7)(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.7.2011 IN WP(C) NO.19189/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P2(A8)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.7.2011 IN WP(C) NO.19189/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P2(A9)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E4- 14489/11 DATED 25.10.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2(A9)(A)	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNX.A9
EXHIBIT P2(A10)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E4- 14489/2011 DATED 30.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANTS
EXHIBIT P2(A10(A)	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNX A10.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19.06.2014 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 06.05.2015 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHI	BITS:
ANNEXURE R5(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD LETTER No.PSI/84/88 DATED 23.09.1989
ANNEXURE R5(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(Rt)No.1702/68/DD DATED 07.05.1968
ANNEXURE R5(f)	TRUE COPY OF HTE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) No.12/70/DD DATED 19.01.1970

¶143

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶144

¶145

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 170/2020

¶146

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶147

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.(EKM)58/2014 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH ERNAKULAM). EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE BOARD LETTER NO.PS1/84/88/ DATED 29.03.1989. EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E43337/03 DATED 24.08.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPENDING SENIORITY LIST OF OVERSEERS WHO WERE PROMOTED AFTER 19.11.1990. EXHIBIT P1(A2(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A2. EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.37356 OF 2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2009 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P1(A4(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A4. EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IMPLEMENTING ANNEXURE A4 ORDER. EXHIBIT P1(A5(A)) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A5. EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT WITH THE SENIORITY LIST OF OVERSEERS. EXHIBIT P1(A6(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A6.

¶148

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶149

¶150

EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.12.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE APPLICANTS WHO GOT PROMOTION AS PER ANNEXURE A4 ORDER. EXHIBIT P1(A7(A)) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A7. EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2011 IN W.P.(C)NO.19189/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E414489/11 DATED 25.10.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A9(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A9. EXHIBIT P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E414489/2011 DATED 30.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANTS. EXHIBIT P1(10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A10. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 IN O.A.(EKM)58/2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2003 IN O.P.NO.17525 OF 1996(J). EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2001 GRANTING PROMOTION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO 3 PERSONS IN THE SENIORITY LIST. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 3.11.1998 GRANTING PROMOTION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO 3 PERSONS IN THE SENIORITY LIST.

¶151

OP(KAT).No.170 OF 2020 & OP(KAT).No.198 OF 2020

¶152

¶153

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶154

ANNEXURE- R5(a) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Ms)No.64/91/LSGD DATED 04.03.1991 ANNEXURE- R5(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.37661/2009 ANNEXURE- R5(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF G.O.(P) NO.515/07/FIN DATED 19.10.2007

M.K.Ramesh v. P.Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Ramesh v. P.Babu

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

A.M. Thomas, Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Thomas Vs Union of India

K.v.G.Achari Vs Union of India

Nadakkal Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.1874 Vs Pradeepan Asan C.

State of Kerala Vs Jameela.v

Francis.K.Jose Vs P.Babu