IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 30704 of 2002
1. T.K. REVEENDRAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated : 17/06/2005
O R D E R
.PL 60
.TM 3
.BM 3
.SP 2
S. Siri Jagan, J.@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=@@
j
O.P.No. 30704 of 2002 @@
j
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=@@
j
Dated this, the 17th day of June, 2005.@@
j
((HDR 0
[O.P.No.30704 of 2002] -: # :-
))
.HE 1
J U D G M E N T@@
jCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
The petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager
(Typesetting) in the services of the 1st respondent,
which is an autonomous Society registered under the
Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable
Societies Registration Act. He was promoted as such
with effect from 1-3-1986. He availed of leave
without allowances for the period from 14-11-1992 to
12-11-1997 and rejoined duty on 13-11-1997.
Thereafter, he completed 10 years of actual service
on 1-3-2001. Since all Assistant Managers in the
Society were being given higher grade in the scale of
pay of Rs.8250-13650 and redesignation of the post as
Deputy Manager on completion of 10 years of service,
the petitioner put in Ext.P4 representation dated
26-2-2001 before the 1st respondent claiming the said
benefits. The governing body of the Society which
met on 10-7-2001 approved the proposal of giving time
bound higher grade and redesignation as Deputy
Manager to the petitioner as was done in the case of
other Deputy Managers. However, unlike in earlier
cases, the governing body decided to seek approval of
the Government for the decision. Accordingly, by
Ext.P8 communication, the Managing Director sought
the approval of the Government for granting higher
grade of Rs.8250-13650 and redesignation as Deputy
Manager to the petitioner. This was followed up with
Ext.P9 letter and Ext.P10 clarification. However, by
Ext.P11 order, the Government accorded sanction for
giving higher grade of only Rs.7200-11400 and
redesignation of Assistant Manager (Higher Grade) to
the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext.
P11 as also Ext.P15 order of the Government to the
extent it limits the eligibility of the petitioner
for higher grade unlike in the case of other
Assistant Managers.
2. Both the 1st respondent-Society and the 2nd
respondent-Government have filed counter affidavits.
Although, the 1st respondent admits that Assistant
Managers similarly placed like the petitioner were
earlier given 10 year Higher Grade of Rs.8250-13650,
since they are bound by the orders of the Government
approval of the Government was sought especially in
view of Ext.P15 Government Order by which only the
time bound grade promotion granted and regulated as
specified in clause 5(B) of G.O(P)No.3000/98/Fin
dated 25-11-1998 and subsequent orders with effect
from 1-11-1998 were made applicable to employees of
the Society. The 2nd respondent in their counter
affidavit stated that in view of Ext.P15 Government
Order, the time bound higher grade granted as per the
G.O. mentioned therein only is applicable to
employees of the 1st respondent Society which was
granted by Ext.P11.
3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner,
counsel for the 1st respondent-Society as well as the
Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The first question that arises for
consideration is as to whether Government approval is
necessary for implementing Ext.P5 decision of the
governing body of the 1st respondent. The Society
seeks to justify their decision to seek approval of
the Government on the basis of Memorandum of
Association and Rules and Regulations of the Society.
The petitioner has extracted Article 20 of the same
as Ext.P6 which the 1st respondent admits is the only
provision on the subject. The same provides as
follows:
.SP 1
“Article 20: The following matters shall require@@
i
the prior approval of the Government.
(i) Appointment to the post of Managing Director@@
i
and to all post carrying a minimum basic salary of
Rs.1200 or more.
(ii) Any programme of capital expenditure which@@
i
exceeds Rs.10 lakhs.
(iii) Agreement involving foreign collaboration@@
i
proposed to be entered into by the Society.
(iv) Sale, lease, mortgage or disposal otherwise@@
i
of the whole or substantially the whole of the
undertaking of the society.
(v) Winding up of the Society.@@
i
(vi) Foreign tours of officials or the Chairman,@@
i
Vice Chairman, Managing Director or any other
member of the Governing Body.
(vii) Rules regarding the conditions of service of@@
i
the employees of the society.”
.SP 2
According to the 1st respondent, by virtue of clause
(vii) of Article 20, prior approval is necessary for
implementation of Ext.P5. This can be countenanced
only if Ext.P5 can be regarded as a Rule regarding
conditions of service of the employees of the
Society. It is not in the case of the petitioner
alone that 10 year higher grade was given to
Assistant Managers. Earlier, one Sri.P.M.Ibrahim,
who entered service along with the petitioner was
granted higher grade of Rs.8250-13650 at which time,
the 1st respondent did not seek approval of the
Government. While granting similar higher grade to
two Assistant Engineers mentioned in Ext.P5 also no
approval of the Government was sought for. By
Ext.P6, the 1st respondent created 4 new posts of
Assistant Managers/Engineers Gr.I, for which also no
approval of the Government was sought. By the same,
the post of Manager (P & A) was upgraded for which
also no approval was sought. That would show that
1st respondent itself did not consider granting of
higher grade as coming within the ambit of clause
(vii) of Article 20. In any event, granting of
higher grade to Assistant Managers on completion of
10 years’ service was an already existing service
condition of Assistant Managers as is evidenced by
the fact that similar benefits were given to three
others as admitted in Ext.P5. For granting the same
to the petitioner alone, no prior approval of the 2nd
respondent is necessary. All it requires is a
decision of the governing body which has been taken
as per Ext.P5. Simply because the Memorandum of
Association contains provisions making prior approval
of the Government mandatory in respect of certain
matters, it is not necessary for an autonomous body
to seek such approval in respect of every matter
especially relating to granting of service benefits,
in accordance with prior practice in the
establishment. Such approval can be insisted upon
only in respect of matters involving policy
decisions. Autonomous bodies should have the freedom
to act in accordance with the rules and regulations
adopted by it. Therefore, I declare that no approval
of the Government is necessary for implementation of
Ext.P5 decision of the governing body of the 1st
respondent.
5. The 2nd respondent contends that in view of
Ext.P15, the employees of 1st respondent-Society
cannot be given higher grade except in accordance
with Annexure II of Ext.P15. Earlier, by Ext.P12,
the 2nd respondent took the stand that time bound
higher grade was not provided for, in respect of
employees of the 1st respondent-Society. That was on
21-8-1987. Probably that is why the 1st respondent
took the decision to grant higher grade to Assistant
Managers earlier. 2nd respondent would contend that
Ext.P15 overrides those decisions. I am not able to
agree .Once a benefit has been conferred on the
employees as a class, the same cannot be taken away
to the detriment of individual members of the same
class. If that is permitted, there will be two
different grades for similarly placed employees in
the same post, who were appointed to the post
together, which would be discriminatory. In this
connection, it would be advantageous to see the
reasons which prompted the governing body to come to
its decision as per Ext.P5. The relevant portion of
Ext.P5 reads as follows:
.SP 1
“Shri Raveendran Pillai was on leave for 5@@
i
years from 12-11-1992 to 12-11-1997 under
employment abroad. He completed 10 years of
service in the grade of Assistant Manager on
1-3-2001 (excluding his service of 5 years on
employment abroad). Thus he is eligible to get
the higher grade of Rs.7200-11400 vide G.O(P)
3000/98/Fin dated 25-11-1998. His request is to
grant the higher grade of Rs.8250-13650 viz. the
scale of Deputy Manager. Earlier, two engineers
grade I and Two Assistant Managers and the Stores
Officer were given the grade of Deputy Manager on
completion of 10 years service as Engineer Grade
I/Assistant Managers vide the decisions of the
Governing Body held on 29-3-1994, 25-3-1996 and
18-12-1996. This was done considering their bleak
promotion prospects.
In the circumstances, the Governing body may@@
i
consider the request of Shri.T.K.Raveendran
Pillai.
DECISION OF THE GOVERNING BODY@@
jCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
The governing Body approved the proposal for@@
i
giving time bound grade promotion to the scale of
pay of Deputy Manager to Sri. T.K.Raveendran
Pillai and for re-designating him as Deputy
Manager as was done in the case of other Deputy
Managers and decided to forward the proposal to
Government for approval.”
.SP 2
Mr. P.M.Ibrahim, the Stores Officer mentioned in
Ext.P5 who entered service along with the petitioner
in the same grade enjoys higher grade on completion
of 10 years. If the same benefit is denied to the
petitioner, that would offend the equality clause
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get
higher grade and re-designation in accordance with
Ext.P5.
6. While at it, I may also deal with a
distressing fact brought to my notice by the
petitioner by filing I.A.No.8410/2005.Along with
I.A.No.8410/2005, the petitioner has produced Ext.P17
resolution of the governing body by which the
governing body has authorised the Managing Director
to consider granting of regular promotion to the
petitioner in a vacant post of Assistant Manager
(Binding) Grade I in the scale of Rs.8250-13650 on
condition that the petitioner withdraws the present
original petition. Such an attitude is quite
unbecoming of an institution owned by the Government
like the 1st respondent. Employees may approach
Courts for redressal of their grievances, which may
be justified or unjustified. Insistence that normal
promotion which has become due to them will be given
only if they withdraw the case filed claiming another
relief, to say the least, is arbitrary. Whether the
petitioner wins or loses in this original petition,
normal promotion which has become due to him cannot
be withheld on that ground. Therefore, I make it
clear that the promotion which has become due to the
petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P17 should not be
denied to the petitioner because of this original
petition.
7. With the above observation, I quash Ext.P11
order of the 2nd respondent and hold that the
petitioner’s right to get higher grade of
Rs.8250-13650 and re-designation as Deputy Manager
cannot be curtailed by Ext.P15. There will be a
direction to the 1st respondent to implement Ext.P5
decision forthwith and pay consequent arrears due to
the petitioner within one month.
The original petition is allowed as above, without
any order as to costs.
Tds/ Sd/-
.JN
.SP 1
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
.PA
((HDR 0
))
.HE 2
.SP 2
.JN
S.Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P.No.30704 of 2002
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J U D G M E N T@@
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
17th June, 2005.
