IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30074 of 2008(E)
1. VENUGOPALAN POTTY,
... Petitioner
2. P.SOLOMON,
3. B.SATHY DEVI,
4. MOHAMMED SHERIFF,
5. VISWAN BINDEH,
6. USHA KUMARI V.N.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/10/2008
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
=====================
W.P(C).No.30074 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are Assistant Executive Engineers in the Public
Works Department. They were appointed during the years 1981 and
1982. Till GO (MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996 was issued, the
categories of posts in the Public Works Department Engineering Service
were Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer,
Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer. By the aforesaid
Government order, two new grades namely, Special Grade Assistant
Executive Engineer and Special Grade Executive Engineer were added.
Pursuant to the said Government order, 13 Executive Engineers were
promoted as Special Grade Executive Engineers. G.O. (MS) No.43/96/PWD
dated 9.2.1996 was challenged in O.P.No.23889 of 2001 on the ground
that as a result of the introduction of the seven tier system, the State will
have to incur an additional expenditure of Rs.100 crores. Though this
Court repeatedly directed the State to disclose the financial implications
of GO (MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996, that was not done. Later,
orders were issued directing the Principal Secretary to Government,
Finance Department and the Principal Secretary to Government, Public
Works Department to show cause why proceedings for contempt should
not be initiated against them. Thereupon a counter affidavit was filed
WP(C) 30074/08 -: 2 :-
stating that the Government have taken a decision to withdraw G.O.(MS)
No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996 and that as per the said decision, those
who have already been promoted to the Special Grades will not be
reverted. In the light of the said statement, O.P.No.23889 of 2001 was
closed. G.O. (MS) No.54/03/PWD dated 7.10.2003 (Ext.P1) was thereafter
issued. The petitioners submit that seeking re-introduction of the seven
tier system introduced as per G.O.(MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996
they have submitted Ext.P2 representation to the Government.
2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature
of mandamus commanding the State Government to reintroduce the
seven tier system. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to consider
Ext.P2 and pass orders thereon. The introduction of the seven tier
system was challenged in this Court in O.P.No.23889 of 2001. Taking
note of the said fact, the Government took a decision pursuant to the
decision of the Cabinet to withdraw the seven tier system introduced as
per G.O.(MS) No.43/96/PWD dated 9.2.1996. This was done some time
in February, 2003. When the petitioners entered service, only the five
tier system was in force. It was only in 1996 that the seven tier system
was introduced and it was also later withdrawn. It cannot therefore be
said that by withdrawing the seven tier system, the vested rights of the
petitioners have been taken away.
3. In these circumstances, the first relief sought for by the
WP(C) 30074/08 -: 3 :-
petitioner cannot be granted. For the same reason, the second relief
sought for also cannot be granted. The petitioners cannot more than
five years after Ext.P1 order was issued, withdrawing the seven tier
system, seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State
Government to consider their request to reintroduce the seven tier
system that was withdrawn as per Ext.P1. This Writ Petition accordingly
fails and is dismissed.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 28/10