High Court Kerala High Court

M.R.Suresh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.R.Suresh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34098 of 2003(H)


1. M.R.SURESH BABU, A.R.HC.4089,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PRADEEP KUMAR K.V., A.R. HC 4077,
3. PURUTHOTHAMAN.P.P., A.R.H.C.4026,
4. PRADEP KUMAR.K., A.R.HCM 4054,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.DAISY THAMPI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/12/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
              --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) NO.34098 OF 2003 (H)
              --------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioners joined the service as Police Constables in Armed

Police. They earned promotion as Havildars. Subsequently, on the

request made by the petitioners, they were transferred to Armed

Reserve, where they were later promoted as Head Constable. The

claim of the petitioners is that while reckoning their eligibility for

the 2nd time bound higher grade, their service from the date of

promotion as Havildars in the Armed Police, should also be

reckoned. This claim was made and was rejected by Ext.P5. It is

challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition is filed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P3 Government

Order dated 24.11.99 which provides that the service rendered by

persons like the petitioners in Armed Battalion or Armed Reserve,

will together be reckoned for awarding first time bound higher

grade. It is stated that if so they should get the credit of services

in the Armed Police even if they are transferred to Armed

Reserve, for awarding the 2nd time bound higher grade.

WPC.No.34098 /03
:2 :

3. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents reads as under.

“Even though the promotion posts of Havildar in KAP

4th Battalion and Head Constables in Armed Reserve,

Kannur are identical in pay scales and nature of duty,

they were transferred to Armed Reserve at their

request only. In the transfer order itself it was clearly

mentioned that they will be reverted as Police

Constable, if no vacancy is available in the Armed

Reserve for absorbing them in the rank held in the

Battalion. But as there was no vacancy of Head

Constables in Armed Reserve, Kannur at that time

they were reverted as Police Constables and their

chance to continue in the post of Havildar/Head

Constable was lost. As per the option submitted by

the petitioners, they have no right to claim the

promoted period to count for second time bound

grade. Now all the petitioners were given the benefit

of II nd time bound Higher Grade after completion of

8 years service in the promoted post from the Armed

WPC.No.34098 /03
:3 :

Reserve.”

4. From this it is evident that at the time when they opted

for transfer to Armed Reserve petitioners agreed to forgo their

promotion in the Armed Battalion, if no vacancy was avaklable to

accommodate them. As no vacancy was available in the Armed

Reserve for absorbing them in the rank they held in the

Battalion, they were recruited and absorbed as Police Constables.

If so, their eligibility for the second time higher grade can only be

reckoned from the date they earned promotion as Head

Constables in the Armed Reserve.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred me to G.O

(P)1041/79(142) fin. dated 27.11.79 and contended that even in

respect of inter district transferees, on their absorption as junior

most in the transferred District, the period spent by them before

transfer is reckoned for time bound higher grade. However, such

cases do not involve any reversion as in this case and if so the

case of the petitioner cannot be compared to the case dealt with

in the Government Order dated 7.11.2078 relied on by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

WPC.No.34098 /03
:4 :

6. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the

Government Order dated 28.11.81 which according to her

provides reckoning of service rendered in different posts having

identical time scales of pay for eligibility for reckoning time

bound higher grade. The scale of pay of Havildar or Head

Constable cannot be identical as that of Police Constable and in

that view of the matter the benefit of this Government Order

cannot be granted. Further, grant of time bound higher grade can

be only as per the terms of the order providing for the same.

Petitioners have no case that the order providing for the benefits

claimed by them.

7. Therefore I am not satisfied that the petitioners have

made out a case for interference.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No.34098 /03
:5 :