Kerala High Court
K.V.Sasidharan vs Kerala State Industrial ... on 23 June, 2021
WP(C).10701/21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10701 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
K.V.SASIDHARAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN MARAR, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
(MARKETING), KERLAS STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES
LIMITED ST. JOSEPHS PRESS BUILDING, COTTON HILL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014, RESIDING AT FLAT N0. 2H,
PHASE-1, SOWPARNIKA RIVER VIEW GARDEN, POOZHIKUNNU,
PAPPANAMACODE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 019.
BY ADVS.
P.RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
ST. JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, COTTON HILL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
ST. JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, COTTON HILL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014,
BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSIEL
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C.ABRAHAM
WP(C).10701/21 2
RAJA KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.6.2021, THE COURT ON 23.06.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).10701/21 3
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.10701 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as Assistant General Manager
(Marketing) in the first respondent, a State owned undertaking. The
petitioner had initially joined the Kerala State Drugs and
Pharmaceutical Limited (KSDP) on 26.7.1984 and later appointed on
deputation in the first respondent on 29.1.2009. He was absorbed
in the regular service of the first respondent on 7.6.2010. The
petitioner is due to retire from service on 31.7.2021 and is
aggrieved by the refusal to reckon his earlier service with the KSDP
for the purpose of service weightage.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew attention to
Exhibits P3 and P5 decisions of the Board of Directors of the 1 st
respondent to contend that his earlier service is liable to be
reckoned for calculating service weightage. Referring to Exhibit P4,
it is argued that the benefit of the decisions has already been
extended to similarly placed employees.
3. According to learned Standing Counsel for the first
respondent, the decisions at Exhibits P3 and P5 will become
applicable only after implementation of the next pay revision. It is
submitted that the last pay revision for the employees in the
managerial cadre was implemented w.e.f 1.4.2005 and the
petitioner having been absorbed in regular service thereafter, will
become eligible for service weightage, for the purpose of fixing
salary, only on the Government according sanction for the next pay
revision w.e.f 1.4.2015.
4. In the nature of the contentions raised, it is apposite to
scrutinise the Exts. P3 and P5 minutes of the Director Board. A
reading of Exhibit P3 shows that earlier, service period of
deputationists absorbed in the first respondent was not being
considered for calculating service weightage, though such service
was considered for the purpose of gratuity. By its decision at Ext.
P3, the Director Board decided to consider the prior service period
of deputationists for calculating service weightage. By Exhibit P5
decision the position was further clarified as under;
''Service period of the deputationists, who were later
absorbed in KSIE. Ltd. means, the total service period the
employee had worked in his/her parent organisation, to be
considered for service weightage, for fixing their salary in
KSIE".
5. Going by the decisions there is no room for doubt that the
earlier service rendered by the petitioner with the KSDP is liable to
be reckoned for calculating service weightage for the purpose of
fixing his salary . The contention of the learned Counsel for the first
respondent that service weightage is liable to be computed only on
implementation of pay revision is liable to be rejected, in the
absence of any such qualification in Exhibits P3 and P5. Exhibit P4
communication, by which an anomaly in the case of a person who
was granted the benefit of Exhibits P3 and P5 was sought to be
corrected, does not, in any manner, support the above contention.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the first
respondent is directed to refix the petitioner's pay in terms of
Exhibits P3 and P5, by reckoning the service rendered by him under
KSDP Ltd. As the petitioner is due to retire on 31.7.2021, the
process of refixation of salary shall be completed within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10701/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO. 121/2010/ID
DATED 7/6/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
KSIE/MDO/2016-17/458 DATED 18/7/2016 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF
THE 199TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE 1T RESPONDENT HELD ON
28/3/2012.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. KSIE/A&HR/4/242
DATED 29/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES
OF THE 215TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF 1ST
RESPONDENT HELD ON 13/8/2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 15/04/2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MD
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
