IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8991 of 2008(U)
1. E.O. SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. K.S. VIJAYAN,
3. K.K. RAVEENDRAN,
4. E.J. ROCKY,
5. T.P. THOMACHAN,
6. P.V. JOSE,
7. K.A. RASSAC,
8. T.O. JOHN,
9. P.C. PETER,
Vs
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) Nos.8991 of 2008
15063 & 2009
of
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Common issues are raised in these writ petitions. Therefore,
these cases are heard and disposed of together.
2. The petitioners herein are JTSSLC holders. They were
recruited as Third Grade Overseers in 1974 in the Public Works
Department and they continued as such. While so, in 1991, the
Public Works Department was bifurcated into Irrigation Department
and Public Works Department. At that time, there were 41 JTSSLC
holders like the petitioners. 25 of them opted for Public Works
Department and 16 including the petitioner opted for Irrigation
Department.
3. The higher post in the hierarchy is Second Grade
Overseer, and the qualification prescribed in the Special Rules is ITI
or Diploma, which the petitioners do not possess. Therefore, they
could not earn any promotion, and hence they continued as Third
WP(C) Nos.8991/2008 & 15063/2009
-2-
Grade Overseers. In the meanwhile, the petitioners in WP(C)
No.15063/2009 attained the age of superannuation and have
retired from service.
4. In these writ petitions, grievance raised is that on the
ground that they were unqualified for promotion to the higher post,
the petitioners were not extended the scale of pay of the promotion
post as time bound higher grade. It is their contention that Third
Grade Overseers like them, who opted for Public Works Department,
represented the matter before the Government and they were given
the benefit of the scale of pay of the promotion post as time bound
higher grade by Ext.P1 order dated 30/01/2006. Thereupon, the
petitioners also represented to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 to them,
which was directed to be considered by this Court in Ext.P7
judgment in WP(C) No.16428/2007 dated 21/06/2007, produced in
WP(C) No.8991/2008. The matter was ultimately considered and by
Ext.P8 order dated 02/02/2008 produced in WP(C) No.8991/2008,
their claim has been rejected on the ground that only those who are
eligible for promotion to the higher post alone are eligible for the
pay of the higher post as time bound higher grade. In so far as
Ext.P1 order issued in favour of similar employees of the PWD is
WP(C) Nos.8991/2008 & 15063/2009
-3-
concerned, it is stated in Ext.P8 order that relaxation of the
conditions of pay revision order in favour of some categories will
lead to demands from similarly placed employees in other
departments, and that such relaxation will create a bad precedent.
It is challenging Ext.P8 order these writ petitions are filed.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent
in WP(C) No.8991/2008. Although the fact that Ext.P1 was issued
and that the benefit extended in the Public Works Department is
admitted, the respondent is placing reliance on the provisions of the
pay revision order, which makes, only to those who are qualified for
promotion, eligible for the scale of pay of the higher post as time
bound higher grade.
6. True, under the pay revision order, only those who are
eligible for promotion to the higher post are eligible for the scale of
pay of that post as time bound higher grade. However, in so far as
the similarly situated employees in the Public Works Department are
concerned, they have been extended the benefit by Ext.P1 order,
and consequential monetary benefits also have been disbursed. The
reason stated in Ext.P1 is that the employees working as Third
Grade Overseer in the Public Works Department is a vanishing
WP(C) Nos.8991/2008 & 15063/2009
-4-
category and deserving sympathetic and humanitarian
consideration. The petitioners in the Irrigation Department are
similarly situated in all respects. If that be so, there is no reason
why similar sympathetic and humanitarian consideration should not
be extended to the petitioners also. Therefore, denial of their claim
evidenced by Ext.P8 cannot be sustained and is quashed. In view of
the above, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to issue orders invoking its powers under Rule 39 of
Part-II KS & SSR, extending the benefit similar to what is extended
to Third Grade Overseers of the Public Works Department vide
Ext.P1, GO(MS) No.6/2006/PWD dated 30/01/2006. Orders as
above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before
the 1st respondent for compliance.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg