{"id":216134,"date":"2006-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006"},"modified":"2015-11-09T07:44:49","modified_gmt":"2015-11-09T02:14:49","slug":"k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006","title":{"rendered":"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 1092 of 2005(E)\n\n\n1. K.S.SEBASTIAN, S\/O. LATE DEVASSIA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHIEF ENGINEER(HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT\n\n3. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PAY FIXATION),\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN\n\n Dated :25\/10\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                          K.K. DENESAN, J.\n\n\n\n                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n                    W.P.(C)  No. 1092 OF 2005 E\n\n                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n                 Dated this the  25th October, 2006\n\n\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The         petitioner         is         a         Senior         Superintendent<\/p>\n
belonging   to   the   service   of   the   1st  respondent-Board.\n<\/p>\n
He has sought for a declaration that he is entitled to<\/p>\n
get his pay stepped up with the pay of his junior Smt.\n<\/p>\n
P.   Kunjamma   from   1-8-1993   at   Rs.2925   in   the   scale   of<\/p>\n
pay of Rs.2550-4215 from 1-8-1998 and at Rs.10,590\/- in<\/p>\n
the   scale   of   pay   of   Rs.8200-12880.     Ext.   P9   is   sought<\/p>\n
to   be   quashed   in   as   much   as   the   petitioner   has   been<\/p>\n
informed   by   the   respondent   that   the   request   made   by<\/p>\n
seniors   for   stepping   up   the   pay   with   that   of   juniors<\/p>\n
cannot be entertained since the respondents had stopped<\/p>\n
entertaining such claims by orders passed in 1996.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   In   the   counter   affidavit   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
respondents   it   is   admitted   that   Smt.   P.   Kunjamma   is<\/p>\n
junior to the petitioner.  It is also admitted position<\/p>\n
that the above mentioned junior is drawing a higher pay<\/p>\n
WPC No. 1092\/2005                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
than   the   petitioner.                   There   is   no   case   for   the<\/p>\n
respondents that the petitioner, though senior, is paid<\/p>\n
a   lesser   pay   due   to   any   fault   on   his   part.     The<\/p>\n
disparity   is   the   direct   result   of   the   pay   revision<\/p>\n
orders and the respective dates on which the increments<\/p>\n
due   to   the   senior   and   the   junior   have   fallen   due   on<\/p>\n
completion   of   one   year   from   the   date   of   sanction   of<\/p>\n
increment   for   the   previous   year.     It   is   an   accepted<\/p>\n
principle   of   service   jurisprudence   that   if   the   senior,<\/p>\n
for no fault of his, is paid salary lesser than that of<\/p>\n
the   junior,   the   pay   of   the   senior   shall   be   stepped   up<\/p>\n
with   that   of   the   junior.     The   respondents   have   been<\/p>\n
permitting the seniors to enjoy the above benefit.  But<\/p>\n
the same is denied to the petitioner based on a cut off<\/p>\n
date   fixed   by   the   respondents   for   entertaining   such<\/p>\n
claims by the employees of the Board.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   The   service   details   of   the   petitioner   and   that<\/p>\n
of Smt. P. Kunjamma have been furnished in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit filed by the 1st respondent.  Paragraphs 4 and<\/p>\n
5   of   the   counter   affidavit   are   extracted   for<\/p>\n
convenience:\n<\/p>\n
           \"4.            The         service          details         of         the\n\n     petitioner are as noted below:\n\n\nWPC No. 1092\/2005                          -3-<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n           Entered           Board          service           as         Junior\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Assistant   on   10-2-1978.     Promoted   as   senior<\/p>\n
     Assistant   with   effect   from   18-7-1983.   First<\/p>\n
     Higher   Grade   promotion   on   18-7-2001.     Second<\/p>\n
     grade promotion on 18-7-2001.\n<\/p>\n
           Sri. Sebastian is seen assigned rank No.<\/p>\n
     391   in   the   gradation   list   of   ministerial<\/p>\n
     staff as on 1-1-2002.\n<\/p>\n
           5.   It   is   submitted   that,   on   the   other<\/p>\n
     hand,   the   proposed   junior,   Smt.   P.   Kunjamma<\/p>\n
     entered   service   a   Cashier   on   14-6-1978.     She<\/p>\n
     was   promoted   as   Senior   Assistant   with   effect<\/p>\n
     from 11-7-1983.  First and second, time bound<\/p>\n
     Higher   Grade   promotions   were   granted   with<\/p>\n
     effect          from         11-7-1993            and          11-7-2001<\/p>\n
     respectively.     The   serial   number   of   Smt.\n<\/p>\n
     Kunjamma in the gradation list of ministerial<\/p>\n
     staff is 399.”\n<\/p>\n
     4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   could   not   bring   to   the   notice   of   the<\/p>\n
respondents   the  disparity  in  the  pay  of  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
and   that   allowed   to   Smt.   P.   Kunjamma   until   he   was<\/p>\n
transferred to the Electrical Sub Division, Palai where<\/p>\n
Smt.   Kunjamma   was   working.     The   pleadings   in   the   writ<\/p>\n
petition go to show that the seniors who are working in<\/p>\n
distant   places   may   not   have   access   to   the   service<\/p>\n
records   of   the   junior   and   it   may   not   be   possible   for<\/p>\n
them   to   ascertain   the   pay   received   by   their   juniors<\/p>\n
until   they   get   such   opportunity   either   accidentally   or<\/p>\n
WPC No. 1092\/2005                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
under fortuitous circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   The   above   pleadings   in   the   writ   petition   have<\/p>\n
not   been   denied   in   the   counter   affidavit.     Hence,   the<\/p>\n
only   question   to   be   considered   is   whether   the<\/p>\n
respondent-Board is right in fixing a cut off date for<\/p>\n
entertaining   requests   made   by   senior   employees   to   do<\/p>\n
away with disparity or anomaly in the pay of the senior<\/p>\n
and that of the junior.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   This   Court   had   occasion   to   consider   similar<\/p>\n
contentions   in  Kamala   Devi  v.  Kerala   State   Financial<\/p>\n
Enterprises Ltd.<\/a>  {2002 (1) KLT 157}.   Paragraphs 6 and<\/p>\n
8 of the above decision read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “6.   Art.   14   guarantees   equality   before<\/p>\n
      law   and   equal   protection   of   laws,   but   the<\/p>\n
      same   does   not   prohibit   classification.     A<\/p>\n
      classification will not be hit by Art. 14, if<\/p>\n
      the same satisfies the twin tests:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (1) there is an intelligible differentia<\/p>\n
      between those included in one group and those<\/p>\n
      excluded from it;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (2)   it   has   a   rational   nexus   with   the<\/p>\n
      object of the law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      The   Supreme   Court   has   held   that   if   the<\/p>\n
      classification   suffers   from   the   vice   of<\/p>\n
      underinclusiveness,   the   same   will   be   hit   by<\/p>\n
      Art. 14.  The Supreme Court has explained the<\/p>\n
      said   principle   pithily   in      In   Re   Special<\/p>\n
      Courts   Bill,  1978,   in   the   following   words:<\/p>\n
      (AIR 1979 (1) SC 478):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nWPC No. 1092\/2005                                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            “120.   The   Court   in  Mohammad   Shujat   Ali<\/p>\n
      v.   Union   of   India,<\/a>  (1975)   1   SCR   449   at   p.<\/p>\n
      477:   (AIR   1974   SC   1631   at   p.   1653)   has<\/p>\n
      explained           the               constitutional                        facet               of<\/p>\n
      classification:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            This          doctrine                     recognises                 that                the<\/p>\n
      legislature   may   classify   for   the   purpose   of<\/p>\n
      legislation                    but               requires                  that                 the<\/p>\n
      classification must be reasonable.  It should<\/p>\n
      ensure   that   persons   or   things   similarly<\/p>\n
      situated   are   all   similarly   treated.     The<\/p>\n
      measure of reasonableness of a classification<\/p>\n
      is   the   degree   of   its   success   in   treating<\/p>\n
      similarly, those similarly situated.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            But   the   question   is:   what   does   this<\/p>\n
      ambiguous           and              crucial                 phrase             similarly<\/p>\n
      situated means?  Where are we to look for the<\/p>\n
      test   of   similarity   of   situation   which<\/p>\n
      determines                    the               reasonableness                       of           a<\/p>\n
      classification?     The   inescapable   answer   is<\/p>\n
      that   we   must   look   beyond   the   classification<\/p>\n
      to   the   purpose   of   the   law.     A   reasonable<\/p>\n
      classification   is   one   which   includes   all<\/p>\n
      persons   or   things   similarly   situated   with<\/p>\n
      respect to the purpose of the law.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            121.   After   having   stated   the   general<\/p>\n
      proposition,   the   Court   struck   a   note   of<\/p>\n
      warning which is the main crux of the present<\/p>\n
      controversy:  Ibid  at   p.   478:   (at   pp.   1653,<\/p>\n
      1654 of AIR):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            “The   fundamental   guarantee   is   of   equal<\/p>\n
      protection   of   the   laws   and     the   doctrine   of<\/p>\n
      classification   is   only   a   subsidiary   rule<\/p>\n
      evolved by Courts to give a practical content<\/p>\n
      to   that   guarantee   by   accommodating   it   with<\/p>\n
      the   practical   needs   of   the   society   and   it<\/p>\n
      should   not   be   allowed   to   submerge   and   drown<\/p>\n
      the   precious   guarantee   of   equality.     The<\/p>\n
      doctrine   of   classification   should   not   be<\/p>\n
      carried   to   a   point   where   instead   of   being   a<\/p>\n
WPC No. 1092\/2005                                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
      useful   servant,   it   becomes   a   dangerous<\/p>\n
      master,   for   otherwise,   as   pointed   out   by<\/p>\n
      Chandrachud,   J.   in  State   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir<\/p>\n
      v.   Triloki   Nath   Khosa,<\/a>  (1974)1   S.C.C.   19:<\/p>\n
      (AIR   1974   SC   1),   “the   guarantee   of   equality<\/p>\n
      will   be   submerged   in   class   legislation<\/p>\n
      masquerading   as   laws   meant   to   govern   well-<\/p>\n
      marked classes characterised by different and<\/p>\n
      distinct   attainments.                                “…..That   process<\/p>\n
      would   inevitably   end   in   substituting   the<\/p>\n
      doctrine   of   classification   for   the   doctrine<\/p>\n
      of   equality;   the   fundamental   right   to<\/p>\n
      equality   before   the   law   and   equal   protection<\/p>\n
      of the laws may be replaced by the overworked<\/p>\n
      methodology   of   classification.     Our   approach<\/p>\n
      to         the         equal           protection                clause           must,<\/p>\n
      therefore,  be   guided   by   the   words   of   caution<\/p>\n
      uttered by Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Jammu<\/p>\n
      &   Kashmir   v.   Triloki   Nath   Khosa.<\/a>                                   “Mini-<\/p>\n
      classifications   based   on   micro-distinctions<\/p>\n
      are   false   to   our   egalitarian   faith   and   only<\/p>\n
      substantial                            and                      straightforward<\/p>\n
      classification   plainly   promoting   relevant<\/p>\n
      goals   can   have   constitutional   validity.     To<\/p>\n
      overdo classification is to undo equality.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 122.   Mathew,   J.   in  State   of   Gujarat  v.<\/p>\n
      Shri.   Ambica   Mills,   Ahmedabad,<\/a>  (1974)   3   SCR<\/p>\n
      760 at p. 782: (AIR 1974 SC 1300 at pp 1312,<\/p>\n
      1313)   placed   the   same   accent   from   the   angle<\/p>\n
      of underinclusion:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 “The   equal   protection   of   the   laws   is   a<\/p>\n
      pledge of  the  protection of equal  laws.    But<\/p>\n
      laws            may         classify….                        A         reasonable<\/p>\n
      classification   is   one   which   includes   all   who<\/p>\n
      are  similarly   situated   and   none   who   are   not.<\/p>\n
      The   question   is   what   does   the   phrase<\/p>\n
      ‘similarly   situated’   means?     The   answer   to<\/p>\n
      the question  is  that we must  look beyond  the<\/p>\n
      classification   to   the   purpose   of   the   law.<\/p>\n
      The   purpose   of   a   law   may   be   either   the<\/p>\n
      elimination   of   a   public   mischief   or   the<\/p>\n
      achievement of some positive public good.<\/p>\n
WPC No. 1092\/2005                 -7-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            A   classification   is   under-inclusive   when<\/p>\n
      all who are included in the class are tainted<\/p>\n
      with   the   mischief   but   there   are   others   also<\/p>\n
      tainted   whom   the   classification   does   not<\/p>\n
      include.  In other words, a classification is<\/p>\n
      bad   as   under-inclusive   when   a   State   benefits<\/p>\n
      or burdens persons in a manner that further a<\/p>\n
      legitimate   purpose   but   does   not   confer   the<\/p>\n
      same   benefit   or   place   the   same   burden   on<\/p>\n
      others   who   are   similarly   situated.               A<\/p>\n
      classification   is   over-inclusive   when   it<\/p>\n
      includes   not   only   those   who   are   similarly<\/p>\n
      situated   with   respect   to   the   purpose   but<\/p>\n
      others   who   are   not   so   situated   as   well.”<\/p>\n
      (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            8.   Even   without   going   into   the   nuances<\/p>\n
      of   law   relating   to   classification,   it   is<\/p>\n
      apparent   that   the   present   case   is   a   clear<\/p>\n
      case   of   plain   discrimination,   in   as   much   as<\/p>\n
      the   appellant’s   junior   is   drawing   higher<\/p>\n
      salary than her without any reasonable reason<\/p>\n
      whatsoever.  So, the appellant is entitled to<\/p>\n
      have   her   salary   stepped   up   with   effect   from<\/p>\n
      the   date   her   junior   started   to   draw   higher<\/p>\n
      pay   than   her.     This   view   taken   by   us   finds<\/p>\n
      support   from   two   decisions   of   the   Supreme<\/p>\n
      Court in  Union of India & Ors.  v.  P. Jagdish<\/p>\n
      &   Ors.<\/a>  (1997)   3   SCC   176)   and   in  Calcutta<\/p>\n
      Municipal   Corpn.   &   Anr.   v.   Sujit   Baran<\/p>\n
      Mukherjee & Ors.<\/a>  (1997) 11 SCC 463).   In the<\/p>\n
      first decision, the Supreme Court has held as<\/p>\n
      follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            “This   principle   becomes   applicable   when<\/p>\n
      the   junior   officer   and   the   senior   officer<\/p>\n
      belong to the same category and the post from<\/p>\n
      which   they   have   been   promoted   and   in   the<\/p>\n
      promoted   cadre   the   junior   officer   on   being<\/p>\n
      promoted later than the senior officer gets a<\/p>\n
      higher   pay.     This   being   the   principle   of<\/p>\n
      stepping   up   contained   in   the   Fundamental<\/p>\n
      Rules   and   admittedly   the   respondents   being<\/p>\n
WPC No. 1092\/2005                 -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
      senior to several other Senior Clerks and the<\/p>\n
      respondents having been promoted earlier than<\/p>\n
      many of their juniors who have promoted later<\/p>\n
      to the  post  of Head Clerks,  the principle  of<\/p>\n
      stepping  up   should   be   made   applicable   to   the<\/p>\n
      respondents   with   effect   from   the   date   of<\/p>\n
      their   juniors   in   the   erstwhile   cadre   of<\/p>\n
      Senior   Clerks   get   promoted   to   the   cadre   of<\/p>\n
      Head   Clerks   and   their   pay   was   fixed   at   a<\/p>\n
      higher   slab   than   that   of   the   respondents.<\/p>\n
      The stepping up should be done in such a way<\/p>\n
      that   the   anomaly   of   juniors   getting   higher<\/p>\n
      salary   than   the   seniors   in   the   promoted<\/p>\n
      category   of   Head   Clerk   would   be   removed   and<\/p>\n
      the   pay   of   the   seniors   like   the   respondents<\/p>\n
      would be stepped up to a figure equal to the<\/p>\n
      pay as  fixed  for their junior  officer in  the<\/p>\n
      higher   post   of   Head   Clerk.     In   fact   the<\/p>\n
      Tribunal   by   the   impugned   order   has   directed<\/p>\n
      to apply  the  principle of stepping  up and  we<\/p>\n
      see   no   infirmity   with   the   same   direction<\/p>\n
      subject to the aforesaid clarifications…..”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The   Apex   Court     has   made   similar   statements   of   law   in<\/p>\n
M.R. Gupta v. Union of India<\/a> {(1995) 5 SCC 628.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   Legal   Liaison          Officer   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
respondents   submits   that   the   respondents   are   prepared<\/p>\n
to   reconsider   the   case   of   the   petitioner   and   take   a<\/p>\n
fresh   decision   in   the   light   of   the   law   laid   down   in<\/p>\n
(1995) 5 SCC 628 and 2002 (1) KLT 157 (supra).\n<\/p>\n
     8.   In   the   result,   Ext.P9   is   set   aside.     The<\/p>\n
respondents   are   directed   to   pass   fresh   orders<\/p>\n
untrammeled   by   the   stand   taken   by   the   Board   in<\/p>\n
paragraph   7   of   the   counter   affidavit.     This   shall   be<\/p>\n
WPC No. 1092\/2005               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
done   within   two   months   on   the   petitioner   producing   a<\/p>\n
copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  K.K. DENESAN<\/p>\n
                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
jan\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 1092 of 2005(E) 1. K.S.SEBASTIAN, S\/O. LATE DEVASSIA, … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, … Respondent 2. CHIEF ENGINEER(HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PAY FIXATION), For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-09T02:14:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T02:14:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1881,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006\",\"name\":\"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T02:14:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-09T02:14:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006","datePublished":"2006-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T02:14:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006"},"wordCount":1881,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006","name":"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T02:14:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-sebastian-vs-kerala-state-electricity-board-on-25-october-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.S.Sebastian vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 25 October, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}