IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37694 of 2004(K)
1. SHRI BINU P.ULAHANNAN,
... Petitioner
2. SHRI BINU VARGHESE,
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU
For Respondent :SRI.ASOK M CHERIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :05/10/2007
O R D E R
A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No. 37694 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are stated to be working now as Sub Engineers in
the Kerala State Electricity Board. Their grievance appears to be that
they had been denied promotion to the post of Sub Engineer under
the 60% quota set apart for the category of Overseers. It is the
contention of the petitioners that they ought to have got promotion
as Sub Engineers long prior to the actual date of their promotion.
For the sake of convenience the prayers in the writ petition are
extracted hereunder:
“(a) issue a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to fill up the vacancies under
60% promotion quota of Sub Engineers
(Ele.) in accordance with the occurrence of
vacancies.
(b) issue a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to fill up the backlog of 829
vacancies under 60% promotion quota by
promoting the Overseers as on 31/12/1998.
(c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to assign retrospective effect to
the petitioners’ promotion to the post of Sub
Engineer atleast with effect from
31/12/1998.”
WP.37694/04 2
2. In the counter affidavit it is contended by the Board that all the
contentions raised by the petitioners are totally misconceived and
untenable. The Board has also taken exception to the list of Sub
Engineers who allegedly belonged to the 60% promotion category.
While Ext.P4 contains the names of the Sub Engineers who had retired
on superannuation between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 1998,
Ext.P5 is the list of Sub Engineers who were promoted as Assistant
Engineers from 1/1/1993 to 31/12/1998. It is admitted by the
petitioners that these two lists (Exts.P4 and P5) have been prepared by
them on the basis of the materials gathered from Ext.P3 gradation list
prepared by the Board and other materials gathered from the office of
the Board. It is contended by the Board in the counter affidavit that
petitioners were given promotion as and when they became eligible for
promotion on the basis of the seniority in the gradation list of
Overseers. The contentions raised by the petitioners undoubtedly fall in
the realm of disputed questions of fact. This Court under Article 226
need not and cannot work out the remedy that the petitioners now seek
in these writ petitions. In my view the petitioners have to necessarily
approach their employer and seek redressal of their grievances.
3. Learned counsel points out that petitioner No.1 had preferred
Ext.P6 representation in this regard before respondent No.2
highlighting all the relevant aspects of petitioners’ common grievances.
However no action has been taken on the said representation, though it
was preferred in the year 2003.
WP.37694/04 3
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
standing counsel for the Board and having perused the materials on
record, I am satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P6
and also the additional representation, if any, that may be preferred by
the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to
mention that the respondents shall ensure that 60% quota available to
Overseers in terms of the relevant Rules and Regulations in the matter
of promotion shall be adhered to strictly.
Petitioners shall produce a certified copy of the judgment along
with a copy of the writ petition and counter affidavit of the respondents
before respondent No.1 for compliance.
A.K. Basheer
Judge.
an.