IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 13228 of 1999(Y)
1. P.SIVADASINI AMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/01/2007
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
O.P. No. 13228 OF 1999 Y
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered service as a Steno-typist in the office of the
Chief Electrical Inspector. She was promoted as Confidential Assistant
Grade-II. Thereafter, she got higher grade promotion with effect from
21.2.1985. Later, on the basis of a Government Order upgrading the
post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II to that of Confidential Assistant
Grade-I with effect from 22.7.1983 the petitioner was granted
retrospective promotion as Confidential Assistant Grade-I with effect
from 22.7.1983. The petitioner is now aggrieved by Exts.P1, P3, P6 and
P9 orders by which the monetary benefits arising out of the retrospective
promotion has been denied to her. Accordingly, she is challenging
those orders.
2. I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs
prayed for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner has not cared to
produce before this court the order by which the petitioner was accorded
retrospective promotion with effect from 22.7.1983 without seeing which
it cannot be ascertained whether or not she is entitled to monetary
benefits also. This is so because if in that order monetary benefits are
OP.13228/99
2
denied to her, without challenging that order she cannot successfully
challenge the impugned orders. Secondly, she did not raise her claim
for monetary benefits arising out of the retrospective promotion within
any reasonable time after issue of that order. The earliest
representation she made in this regard is on 9.9.1997, which was
rejected by Ext.P1 order dated 15.12.1997 on the ground that there is a
specific entry in her service book to the effect that ‘”No monetary benefit
in the grade promotion sanctioned”. Even then, the petitioner did not
choose to challenge those orders. She went on filing another
representation, which was also rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 2.1.1998
stating the very same reason as in Ext.P1. Still the petitioner did not
find it necessary to challenge the same. She again filed a
representation, which was rejected by Ext.P5 order of the Government
dated 3.6.1998. The same was followed up by Ext.P6 order dated
16.2.1999. That also the petitioner did not challenge immediately. She
waited till 1.6.1999.
3. Further, in the counter affidavit submitted on behalf of the
2nd respondent it is specifically stated that if the petitioner is to be given
monetary benefits of the retrospective promotion with effect from
22.7.1983 she would have to refund the amounts received by her on her
getting time bound grade promotion with effect from 21.2.1985, which
would not be available to her, if she is to be given retrospective
OP.13228/99
3
promotion with effect from 22.7.1983. It is further stated therein that
consequent on revision of pay as ordered by pay revision order in 1985
also she would become liable to refund a huge amount in lump sum
being excess amounts drawn consequent on such re-computation of the
benefits. In any event, since the petitioner has not approached neither
the authorities nor the court within a reasonable time after the orders
regarding her retrospective promotion, which was issued as early as on
19.2.1986, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in
favour of the petitioner at this distance of time. Accordingly, the original
petition is dismissed.
(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)
aks
S. SIRI JAGAN , J.
OP No.13228/99 Y
J U D G M E N T
23rd January, 2007