IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 423 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELEC.), GENERAL
Vs
1. R. KRISHNAN KUTTY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
J. B. KOSHY &
K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. A. No.423 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J
The respondent/writ petitioner and one
Vijayakumaran Nair joined the service of
Electricity Board as Electricity Worker in
June, 1983. Both were promoted on the same
date i.e. 01/01/1987 as Junior Line Assistant.
On 30/09/1992, the respondent/petitioner was
promoted as Meter Reader skipping the
intermediary cadre of Line Assistant. On
17/03/1994 only Vijayakumaran Nair was
promoted as Line Assistant and within five
months, on 31/08/1994 he was further promoted
as Meter Reader. Here, writ petitioner was
promoted as Meter Reader on 30/09/1992 whereas
W. A. No.423 of 2008 -2-
Vijayakumaran Nair was promoted as Meter
Reader only after two years i.e. on 31/08/1994.
Vijayakumaran Nair has salary in a higher pay
scale than the respondent/petitioner because
in the lower category of Junior Line Assistant
he worked more years than the writ petitioner
and earned more increments. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge found that it is an
anomaly and the Writ Petitioner also should be
paid as the same as Vijayakumaran Nair.
Respondent/petitioner got promotion as Meter
Reader on 30/09/92. Vijayakumaran Nair got
promotion in August, 1994, after two years.
Merely because respondent/petitioner got early
promotion, his salary cannot be less than the
salary of Vijayakumaran Nair. On the basis of
the decision in Union of India v. O.P.Saxena [(1997) 6 SCC
W. A. No.423 of 2008 -3-
360] it was argued that this is not an anomaly
to be rectified in the pay revision order. We
are of the view that since Vijayakumaran Nair
and respondent/Writ Petitioner were appointed
in the same month and promoted as Junior Line
Assistant on the same day and the writ
petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Meter
Reader two years prior to Vijayakumaran Nair,
certainly this will be an anomaly and this has
to be rectified. Merely because for more years
Vijayakumaran Nair has worked than the
respondent/petitioner as Junior Line Assistant,
respondent/petitioner will not be denied the
right of stepping up his pay to that of his
junior. In the post of Meter Reader,
Vijayakumaran Nair was junior to respondent/
petitioner. We fully agree with the views of
W. A. No.423 of 2008 -4-
the learned Single Judge.
Appeal fails and is dismissed
accordingly.
J. B. KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-