Loading...
Responsive image

Muraleedharan.T.S. vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 29 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan.T.S. vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 29 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14805 of 2009(U)


1. MURALEEDHARAN.T.S.,S/O.SANKARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.),KSEB,

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :29/05/2009

 O R D E R
                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                     -------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C)No.14805 of 2009
                     --------------------------------------
                         Dated 29th May, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is presently working as Sub Engineer in

the Kerala State Electricity Board. His grievance is that though he was

promoted as Sub Engineer, his pay was reduced when the pay was

fixed in implementation of a settlement arrived at in 2007. The

petitioner submits that the Kerala State Electricity Board has now

issued Ext.P6 circular protecting the pay of promotees as personal pay

in order to avoid reduction in pay. He submits that relying on the said

circular, he has submitted Ext.P3 representation before the second

respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a

direction to the second respondent to consider the request made by

him in Ext.P3 representation in the light of Ext.P6 circular issued by

the Board and to take a decision thereon within a time limit to be

fixed by this Court.

3. The pleadings disclose that the pay of the petitioner

stood reduced when the settlement arrived at in the year 2007 was

WP(C).No.14805/2009 2

implemented. The Board has issued Ext.P6 circular to rectify the said

anomaly. I am therefore of the opinion that the request made by the

petitioner in Ext.P3 representation merits consideration at the hands of

the second respondent.

I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to

the second respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner

in Ext.P3 representation in the light of Ext.P6 circular and take a

decision thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment. It will be open to the second

respondent if he feels it necessary, to hear the petitioner in person

before passing orders as directed above.

P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge

TKS

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information