IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2713 of 2009()
1. RAJAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 2713 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was the writ petitioner. He was an employee of the
Cochin Devaswom Board. He joined the service of the said Board as
Kalavara of the Elamkunnapuzha Temple in 1954. According to the
appellant, the post of Kalavara was re-designated as Masappadi and
thereafter, he was posted as Masappadi in Ayyampilly Temple. He
continued in that post till his retirement on 28.2.1995. An employee
continuing in the same post without promotion is entitled to get higher
grade on completion of 13 years of service as per Ext.P1 order. The
appellant/petitioner claimed the benefit of that order. But, that was
rejected by Ext.P3 proceedings. That decision was reconsidered and
again affirmed by Ext.P8. Challenging Exts.P3 and P8 and praying for a
direction to grant him higher grade on completion of 13 years of service,
taking into account his service as Kalavara, the Writ Petition was filed.
2. The respondent resisted the prayers by pointing out that
W.A. NO. 2713/2009 2
Masappadi is a promotion post of Kalavara and as evident from Ext.R1(a),
extract of the service book, the appellant was promoted as Masappadi
from the post of Kalavara in 1976. Since the appellant has already got one
promotion, he is not entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P1. The learned
Single Judge accepted the said contention and dismissed the Writ Petition
and hence, this appeal.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the
learned Standing Counsel for the Board. The view taken by the learned
Single Judge, relying on Ext.R1(a), cannot be said to be illegal or
irrational. We find that no ground has been raised in the appeal to
dislodge the said finding. That being so, the appellant, being a person
who got promotion, cannot get the benefit of Ext.P1.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
W.A. NO. 2713/2009 3
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A.NO.2713/2009
JUDGMENT
5th January, 2010
W.A. NO. 2713/2009 4