High Court Kerala High Court

A.N.Mohanan vs Kerala State Electricy Board on 2 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
A.N.Mohanan vs Kerala State Electricy Board on 2 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23209 of 2007(K)


1. A.N.MOHANAN, SUB ENGINEER, K.S.E BOARD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) K.S.E.BOARD,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :02/01/2009

 O R D E R
                     T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
                --------------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) NO:23209 of 2007
                ---------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a physically handicapped person having 40%

disability. This is evidenced by Ext.P1 Certificate. He was initially

appointed on a provisional basis under the first respondent, Kerala

State Electricity Board as a Sub Engineer. The petitioner had been

regularised in service with effect from 13-10-1999 as per Ext.P2.

According to him, going by the provisions of the Central Act namely the

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Right and

Full participation) Act, 1995, he is entitled to further promotion to the

next higher posts. It is also stated that the first respondent and the

recognised trade unions representing the employees had entered into a

long term settlement on 27.2.07 wherein specifically under clause 32 a

provision has been made to the effect that special promotion rules to

physically handicapped employees in 3% quota will be implemented by

the Board after identifying the eligible categories. According to the

petitioner his qualification is Diploma in Electrical Engineering and even

though 84 Sub Engineers having the same qualification and who have

been directly recruited by the Public Service Commission were promoted

so far no action has been taken to identify the posts or apply the

principle envisaged in the case of persons who are physically

handicapped.

wpc:23209/2007
2

2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 5, it is

admitted that the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995, is

applicable to the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to the Board it

has been decided vide the terms of settlement dated 28-2-2007 that special

promotion rules to physically handicapped employees in 3% quota will be

implemented by the Board, after identifying the eligible categories. It is also

submitted that, an expert committee has to be constituted to identify the

posts in Class I and Class II for reservation to the physically handicapped

persons as done by the Government. It is further submitted that without

constituting an expert committee, no posts can be identified for reserving 3%

reservation for physically handicapped persons as envisaged under the Act.

3. It cannot be disputed that the Act in question confer appointment to

various categories of physically handicapped persons and no employer can

deny the said rights to the claimants. Herein the terms of settlement

provides for special promotion to them. Therefore, the implementation of

the provision cannot be denied by the respondents herein. Petitioner seeks

consideration of his claim for promotion in the said quota. He has filed

Ext.P6 representation before the second respondent seeking for appropriate

action in the matter. On going through the Counter affidavit filed by the

Board, the stand taken is that an expert committee has to be constituted in

the matter of identifying the posts etc. Therefore, further action has to be

wpc:23209/2007
3

taken by the first respondent itself expeditiously so that the benefits as

agreed to could be granted to such persons. Therefore, the first respondent

will take further action in the matter including constitution of an expert

committee within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment. Action to redress the grievance of the petitioner will be

taken thereafter and Ext.P7 representation will be considered on merits and

appropriate action will be taken within a further period of two months. In

the light of the directions issued above, Ext.P5 stands set aside.

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

T.R.RANACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE

bps