IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 15003 of 2002(J)
1. M.A.RAJU,COMPOSITOR GRADE-1,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THEIRECTOR OF PRINTING,GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
2. S.LEELA,COMPOSITOR GRADE-1,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/05/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
O.P.15003/2002
--------------------
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to his being advised by the PSC, petitioner entered
service as Compositor Grade-II in the Printing Department by
joining Government Press at Mannanthala on 27.7.1987.
Thereafter, on an application made by the petitioner, he got an
inter district transfer to the Government Press, Ernakulam where he
joined on 21.12.1987.
2. In 1988, Ext.P1 gradation list was published wherein the
petitioner was included as Sl.No.372 giving him seniority from
27.7.1987 when he entered service. The 2nd respondent who
entered service later was shown as his junior. Subsequently in
2001, Ext.P2 provisional gradation list was published. In that list,
2nd respondent was shown as Sl.No.280 whereas petitioner was
shown as 289. This was because his service from 21.12.1987,
when he joined Ernakulam Government Press on inter district
transfer, alone was given credit. He submitted Ext.P3 objection
which was rejected by Ext.P4 and by Ext.P6 proceedings of the 1st
O.P.15003/02
2
respondent, Ext.P2 gradation list was published. It is in these
circumstances, the writ petition is filed contending that the
petitioner is entitled to seniority over the 2nd respondent giving
credit for the service rendered by him from 27.7.1987.
3. It is his contention that his seniority having been settled by
Ext.P1, could not have been revised to his disadvantage at a later
point of time. On the other hand, from the counter affidavit filed
by the 1st respondent it would appear that when Ext.P1 gradation
list of the Technical employees of the Printing Department was
published, the fact that the petitioner lost seniority due to inter
district transfer was not considered. It is stated that subsequently,
based on the judgment of this Court in O.P.6674/91 and
O.P.5586/93, where this Court held that the employees who
secured inter district transfers would get seniority in the entry
cadre with effect only from the date of their joining duty in the new
district, steps were taken for revising the gradation list. It was in
pursuance to that direction gradation list was revised and Ext.P2
provisional gradation list was published. Respondents also
contend that under the first proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS & SSR,
O.P.15003/02
3
seniority shown in Ext.P6 is legal and does not call for any
interference.
4. Admittedly, petitioner has joined the Government Press,
Ernakulam on inter district transfer. Unit of appointment is district
wise. If that be so, on transfer petitioner joined the transferred
unit, as the junior most. This is consistent with the first proviso to
Rule 27(a) of KS & SSR. Therefore, seniority as reflected in Ext.P6
does not suffer from any irregularity to be interfered with in this
proceedings.
5. It is true that by Ext.P1, seniority of the petitioner was
finalized. However, when this Court laid down the law that those
who was transferred by inter district transfer will be the junior
most in the transferred unit and directed revision of the seniority
settled by Ext.P1, respondents cannot be faulted for taking
necessary follow up action. If that be so, the contention of the
petitioner that seniority once settled, could not have been
disturbed, does not deserve acceptance. Therefore, Ext.P6 cannot
be interfered with.
O.P.15003/02
4
6. However, it is clarified that though the date of joining in the
transferred unit will determine the seniority of the petitioner, that
date cannot be taken as the date of his entry into service, for other
purposes.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs