IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 20963 of 1999(U)
1. USMAN CHALIYADAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :01/02/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
O.P.NO.20963 of 1999
----------------------------------
Dated this 1st day of February , 2007
JUDGMENT
The issue which arises in this case is whether the
provisional service which was rendered by the writ petitioner,
who is presently working as Junior Health Inspector in Municipal
common service in other departments prior to 1.10.1994, should
be reckoned with for the purpose of grade promotions and
increments. Ext.P1 dated 4.11.1986 is the appointment order
by which the petitioner was provisionally appointed as a Junior
Health Inspector in the Health service Department. Ext.P2 will
show that the petitioner’s period of provisional appointment was
being extended from time to time and that the petitioner was
continued till regular PSC hands joined for duty. Ext.P3 dated
12.3.1991 is the appointment order by which the petitioner was
given regular appointment on the basis of advice by the PSC. The
petitioner claims that he is entitled for reckoning the entire
provisional service which he has rendered prior to his regular
appointment under Ext.P3 for grade Promotions and
O.P.No.20963/1999 2
Increments. He refers to G.O.(P) No.459/86/Fin. Dated 1.7.1986
whereby it is ordered that provisional service on regularisation
or followed by regular appointment with or without break in
the same category will be treated as officiating service ab initio
for the limited purpose of granting of increments. He points out
that in G.O.(P) No.379/76/Fin. dated 14.12.1976 the
Government has imposed three conditions. The 3rd condition is
as follows:
“iii) The post should fall in the same service”.
He submits that on the basis of the representation submitted by
several Government Organization, the Government was pleased
to issue G.O.(P) No.459/86/Fin. Dated 1.7.86 thereby delete the
above reported condition No.3. Since the Condition No. 3 is
deleted the only conditions which should be followed are
condition Nos. 1 and 2 which are as follows;
i). The post should carry the same or identical scale of
pay.
ii). The qualification and method of appointment should be
same.
Both the above conditions are followed and satisfied in the
petitioner’s case and therefore he claims that there is no reason
as to why provisional service rendered by him should not be
O.P.No.20963/1999 3
reckoned with. The petitioner refers to GO.(P) No. 1041/79
(142) Fin. dated 27.11.1979 and G.O.(P) No.517/88 (234) Fin.
Dated 8.8.1988 of the Finance Department which were to the
effect that provisional service will be reckoned as qualifying
service for the purpose of Grade Promotion. He further refers
to G.O. (P) No.540/94/Fin. dated 30.9.1994 by which the
Government has deleted its decision in Rule 33 of KSR with
effect from 1.10.1994. The prominent ground raised by the
petitioner is that since the entirety of the provisional service
rendered by him was prior to 1.10.1994 he is entitled to have the
entire duration of his provisional service reckoned with for the
purpose of Higher Grade and increments. Raising his claim he
submitted representation seeking counting of his provisional
service also for promotion. The Office of the Local Fund
District Examiner, Wyanad considered that representation and
issued Ext.P4 letter to the Secretary of the Secretary of the
Kalpetta Municipality. Ext.P4 was forwarded by the Secretary
of the Kalpetta Municipality to the Director of Municipalities.
But the Directorate of Municipalities, by their proceedings dated
2.5.1997 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the reason that
the provisional service rendered by the petitioner was in a
O.P.No.20963/1999 4
different department than the department into which the
petitioner was regularly appointed. Ext.P5 is a copy of the
proceedings of the Municipality in that regard. The petitioner
contends that the reason contained in Ext.P5 perse, wrong in
view of G.O.(P) No.459/86/Fin. dated 1.7.1986. The petitioner
submits that the issue was taken up by the District Examiner,
Wayanad of the Local Fund District Examiner’s Office who by
proceedings dated 9.9.1997 again clarified that provisional
hands like the petitioner who were regularly appointed prior to
1.10.1994 can be granted the benefit of calculating the
increments reckoning the provisional service also. Ext.P6 is
relied on by the petitioner in this regard. Subsequently the
Local Fund Audit Directorate, Trivandrum would refer to G.O.(P)
No.459/86 and inform the Local Fund Audit Director, Wyand that
the decision of the Municipality to grant increment to the
petitioner by reckoning his provisional service is correct.
Ext.P7 is the letter of the Local Fund Auditor to the District
Examiner Wayanad. The grievance of the petitioner is that in
spite of all this, the Government did not favourably consider his
request for reckoning temporary service also for the purpose of
granting increments and grade promotions. He submits that he
O.P.No.20963/1999 5
was not heard in the matter by the Government at all. He came
across copy of the Government letter incorporating decision of
the Government taken in the case of a similarly circumstanced
employee of the Municipal service Department. Ext.P8 is the
copy of that letter. In Ext.P8 what is stated is that the
Government’s decision No. 2 in Rule 33 of Part I of KSR will not
apply to employees who get regularized in the Municipal
common service through PSC selection.
2. The Petitioner’s grievance is that the Government has
not so far taken any decision on the recommendation in Exts.P7
and P8 to grant higher grades and increments to the petitioner
reckoning his provisional service in the Health service
Department.
3. I have heard the submissions of Sri. T.Ravikumar the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar
the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. It appears
to me having regard to the Government Orders in G.O.(P)
No.459/86/Fin. dated 17.1986, G.O.(P) No.540/94/Fin. dated
13.9.1994 and Government Circular No.3/95/(55) Fin. dated
1.3.1995 that the petitioner whose provisional service prior to
1.10.1994 was followed by appointment in regular service with
O.P.No.20963/1999 6
effect from 23.3.1991 has got a fairly strong case to have such
provisional service reckoned with for the purpose of grade
promotions and increments. I did not propose to decide the
issue finally. The petitioner is permitted to submit a proper
representation before the Government voicing his grievance
incorporating a copy of this judgment and copies of the various
G.O.(P)s relied on by the petitioner. If the respondents receives
such a representation within one month of the petitioner
receiving a copy of this judgment the Government will hear the
petitioner and pass just and appropriate order on that
representation in the light of the observations herein above
within three months of the Government receiving the same.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk
O.P.No.20963/1999 7
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J
—————————
O.P. NO.20963/1999
————————–
JUDGMENT
1ST FEBRUARY 2007