IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25099 of 2010(J)
1. K.K.JAYAPRAKASH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.25099 of 2010 (J)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
On 08/03/1999, the petitioner joined service as a Forest
Guard. While working in that post, he got appointment and joined
in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department on 25/08/2003.
However, on the request of the petitioner, he was reverted back to
the parent department, where he joined on 26/05/2005. Counting
the entire services, including the service rendered by him in the
Scheduled Tribe Development Department, he claimed time bound
higher grade. That was rejected by Ext.P4 dated 06/11/2007.
Against Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the
1st respondent through the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has
not forwarded the representation. It is in these circumstances, the
writ petition has been filed.
2. Reason stated for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
time bound higher grade contained in Ext.P4 reads as follows :-
“On verification of the Service Book of the incumbent it is
found that Sri.K.K.Jayaprakash, Forest Guard has not completed 8
WP(C) No.25099/2010
-2-
years of service in the category of Forest Guard.
As per GO(P)145/06/Fin. dated 25/03/2006, Para-16, time
bound higher grade admissible will be determined with reference
to the initial entry post in the present Department only. Service in
posts having same scale will not be treated as qualifying service.
Hence the incumbent is not eligible for getting higher grade on
completion of 8 years of service in the entry cadre.”
Going by the Government Order governing grant of time bound
higher grades, the reason stated in Ext.P4 cannot be said to be
erroneous.
In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to think that the
claim of the petitioner is justified.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg