K.N.Chandramohanan vs Kerala State Electricity Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 2423 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                          WP(C).No.18877 OF 2011(H)


PETITIONER:

                K.N.CHANDRAMOHANAN
                ELECTRICAL SECTION, ADOOR.

                BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)

RESPONDENTS:

       1        KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
                TRIVANDRUM-4.

       2        THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM
                KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
                TRIVANDRUM - 4.

                BY SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.18877 OF 2011(H)

                                   2




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that, at the time when this writ

petition was filed, she was working as an Assistant Engineer in

the services of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for

short); and that he has approached this Court seeking a

declaration that his provisional service, rendered prior to

joining the regular service of KSEB, be reckoned for the

purpose of fixation of higher grade, particularity because it has

already been reckoned for the purpose of increments.

2. The petitioner says that, as is evident from Ext.P1,

the Board itself has taken a view that if the provisional service

in a cadre or scale of pay, is counted for increments, then it

will count for grade benefits in that scale of pay. He points out

that through the said order, the Board has, in fact, denied

benefits to a person by name, Sri.K.N.Chandramohan, saying

that since his provisional service had not been counted for

increments, it will not count for his grade, which makes it

evident that had it been otherwise, the said officer would have

got the benefit of grade promotion also.

3. Smt.Gayathri Potti, learned counsel appearing for WP(C).No.18877 OF 2011(H)

the petitioner, added to the above by saying that in Ext.P1, an

office letter of the Board dated 15.06.1882 has been referred

to, which limpidly clarifies to the effect that provisional service

of an employee in the service of a Board will count for grade

promotion, if it had already been reckoned for the purpose of

increments. She submitted that, however, this benefit has

been denied to her client without any cogent or reliable reason

and therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed and

that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

4. Even though this matter has been admitted as early

as in the year 2011, the KSEB has not filed any counter

pleadings, nor have they produced on record any document

opposing the plea of the petitioner. In fact, I notice that Ext.P5

representation of the petitioner, seeking this benefit, was

made as early as on 01.03.2010, but that it has not been yet

disposed of or replied to by the KSEB, in any manner.

5. When I go through Ext.P1 Board Order, which is

relied upon by the petitioner, it is expressly stated therein that

as per the clarification issued through the order dated

15.06.1982, "the service in a cadre or scale of pay will count WP(C).No.18877 OF 2011(H)

for grade promotion if it counts for weightage pension and

increments in that cadre/scale of pay".(sic)

6. The petitioner says that he had worked provisionally

as a lineman during four spells from 1981 to 1987, thus being

cumulatively three years, five months and nineteen days, prior

to his regular appointment on 09.03.1998. He asserts that his

provisional service has already been reckoned for increments

and therefore, that it should be reckoned for the purpose of

grade benefits also.

7. I find substantial force in the submissions of

Smt.Gayathri Potti, learned counsel for the petitioner, as made

afore and am of the view that the KSEB must accede to the

request of the petitioner, if his provisional service has already

been accounted for the purpose of increments.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and

direct the competent Authority of the respondents to

immediately issue orders granting the request as sought for by

the petitioner; however, on condition that the provisional

service which he refers to in the writ petition has already been

reckoned for the purpose of increments.

WP(C).No.18877 OF 2011(H)

The afore exercise shall be completed by the competent

Authority of the KSEB, as expeditiously as is possible but not

later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment and the resultant benefits, if any, will be disbursed

to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.

SD/-

                                        DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.18877 OF 2011(H)





                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/12/1999.

EXHIBIT P2                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2004.

EXHIBIT P3                 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
                           DATED 18/07/2007 IN WPC NO.34074/2004.

EXHIBIT P4                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2008.

EXHIBIT P5                 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/03/2010.

EXHIBIT P6                 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 08/04/2011.