High Court Kerala High Court

B.M.Ali vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
B.M.Ali vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34287 of 2008(F)


1. B.M.ALI, SOCIAL WORKER, BLOOD BANK,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

3. IRISHIKESHAN P.S.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI

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

 Dated :30/11/2009

 O R D E R
                     T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     W.P.(C) No.34287 of 2008-F
                  - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009.

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P8 orders. As per

Ext.P3, he was directed to be promoted with effect from 24.4.1998 reverting

the third respondent. The said order was modified as per Ext.P6, whereby it

was clarified that the petitioner is notionally promoted as Social Worker

with effect from 24.4.1998 without any back arrears, cancelling Ext.P3. By

Ext.P8 he is informed that the claim for grant of 8 years higher grade in the

category of social worker with effect from 24.4.2006 cannot be considered,

since his notional promotion as Social Worker for the period from

24.4.1998 to 1.10.2004 will not be reckoned as qualifying service for time

bound higher grade.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the

decision of this Court in Ibrahim v. Commissioner & Secretary to

Government (2003 (1) KLT 534), Ext.P8 order cannot be sustained.

Therefore, even though Ext.P6 order cannot be supported, he is confining

his argument on the validity of Ext.P8.

3. The petitioner started his career as Driver in the Govt. Medical

wpc 34287/2008 2

College, Calicut. He possesses the qualifications of B.Com., B.A. and M.A.

Degrees in Sociology obtained from the Calicut University. The petitioner

was claiming for promotion to the post of Social Worker when a vacancy

arose in the Medical Education Service on 28.2.1995. He had to approach

this Court by filing O.P.No.4748/1999 and this Court by judgment dated

21.7.2005 directed the petitioner to file a representation in the matter.

Pursuant to the same, Ext.P3 order was passed. It is pointed out that the

petitioner is senior to the third respondent and the denial of promotion was

absolutely wrong also. By Ext.P4, he was asked whether he has got any

objection to the proposal whereby the third respondent was sought to be

accommodated in one of the vacancies and the petitioner can be

accommodated as Social Worker in the department of Blood Bank. The

petitioner’s willingness as directed above, was forwarded by him as per

Ext.P5 with retrospective effect from 24.4.1998. Later, by Ext.P6, he was

granted notional promotion.

4. The question is whether the period from 24.4.1998 to 1.10.2004

could be reckoned as qualifying service for time bound higher grade. In

Ibrahim’s case (2003 (1) KLT 534) it was held by this Court in similar

circumstances that when a person obtained the promotion based on the

direction issued by this Court, the period of notional service could be

wpc 34287/2008 3

reckoned for the purpose of granting higher grade. It was held thus in

para 1:

“Stagnation in a scale for ten years is the basis for granting higher

grade. Though the petitioner was granted only notional benefits, it

has to be seen that he was in the scale in the said period of ten years.

Whether a person who was in actual discharge of duties attached to a

post is not a consideration relevant in the matter of granting higher

grade. Having been denied promotion and the promotion having

been restored pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, it is

only in the interest of justice that the petitioner is granted at least the

higher grade taking the period of notional service as service for the

purpose of granting higher grade.”

5. The petitioner was denied promotion initially and only by Ext.P3

order, he could get promotion. In that view of the matter, by denying the

benefit of higher grade without counting the period from 24.4.1998 to

1.10.2004, he will loose back arrears as well as the benefit of higher grade.

In the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Ibrahim’s case (2003

(1) KLT 534) the said position cannot be accepted.

6. Therefore, Ext.P8 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is

entitled for grant of higher grade reckoning the period from 24.4.1998 to

1.10.2004. Going by Ext.P13, a notification has been issued inviting

applications for the post of Social Scientist. Therein, there is a Note

wpc 34287/2008 4

indicating that when there are more than one employee in the Medical

Education Service willing for promotion to the post of Social Scientist, the

person in the higher scale will be preferred. In the light of the direction

issued by this Court to grant higher grade, the claim of the petitioner also

will be considered along with others, if any. Appropriate orders with

regard to the higher grade benefits will be passed within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/