High Court Kerala High Court

M.Subair Kunju vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
M.Subair Kunju vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 6905 of 2003(V)


1. M.SUBAIR KUNJU, ANAS MANZIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.B.JAYACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :27/11/2008

 O R D E R
                          S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                    ==================

                      O.P.No. 6905 of 2003

                    ==================

           Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

The issue involved in this original petition relates to higher

grade which the petitioner claims he is entitled to. The petitioner

entered service as a Village Assistant on 18.7.1981. He was

granted 10 years’ higher grade and 18 years’ higher grade, in

respect of fixation of pay of which the petitioner raised certain

objections. While those objections were being considered, the

Government found that the petitioner was given 10 years’ higher

grade in the scale of pay of Village Officer although he was not

qualified to hold the post of Village Officer for want of passing of

test qualification. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner was

entitled to 10 years’ higher grade only in the intermediate scale

and not in the scale of pay applicable to the next promotion post.

Hence it was directed to revise the higher grade payable to the

petitioner accordingly. Exts.P5 and P6 orders in this regard are

under challenge in this original petition.

2. The petitioner submits that the finding that the

petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Village Officer is

o.p.6905/03 2

not correct. According to him, he had actually passed the test,

but he had lost the certificates and therefore, he could not

produce the same before the superior officers. The petitioner now

points out in his reply affidavit that he has been proceeded

against in disciplinary proceedings on the charge that for avoiding

transfer due to promotion and consequent permanent

relinquishment from promotion, the petitioner had suppressed

the fact about passing of the departmental test, in which

proceedings the petitioner was found guilty and by Ext.P8 order,

the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of censure.

According to the petitioner, this would go to show that the

petitioner had actually passed the departmental test, which was

the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Village

Officer and, therefore, the petitioner was actually entitled to the

higher grade in the scale of pay of the Village Officer.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed in the original

petition, which does take into account Ext.P8. The same proceeds

on the basis that the petitioner is not eligible for the higher

grade in the scale of pay of the Village Officer, since the

petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Village Officer for

o.p.6905/03 3

want of test qualification.

4. On a consideration of the rival contentions, I find that

the petitioner was, by Ext.P8, actually found guilty of suppression

of the fact of passing the departmental test, which was the

qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Village

Officer. That being so, I am of opinion that the matter is liable to

be reconsidered in the light of the above facts. Accordingly this

original petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The petitioner shall within three weeks from today, along

with a certified copy of this judgment, file a suitable

representation before the 2nd respondent-District Collector. The

District Collector, on receipt of the representation, shall afford an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass final orders,

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from

the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified

copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

sdk+                                          S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
      ///True copy///


                            P.A. to Judge

o.p.6905/03    4




                      S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                  ================

                  O.P.No. 6905 of 2003-V

                  ================




                      J U D G M E N T




                   27th November, 2008

o.p.6905/03    5