Kerala High Court
Kerala Khadi And Village Industries ... vs P.C. Chandrakumari on 15 February, 2024
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/26TH MAGHA, 1945
WA NO.666 OF 2023
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7365/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 12.12.2022
---------------------
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN WPC :-
KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
KHADI BHAVAN, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WPC :-
1 P.C. CHANDRAKUMARI
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 RAVI C
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADDL.3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 15.2.2024 IN I.A.No.1/2023.
BY ADVS.
SHAJI THOMAS
MOHAN PULIKKAL(K/64A/1985)
JEN JAISON(K/000208/2017)
SRI.SAIGY JACOB PALATTY, SR.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.1.2024 THE
COURT ON 15.2.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.666 OF 2023
-: 2 :-
ANU SIVARAMAN, J. & C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No.666 of 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
Anu Sivaraman, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent and the learned
Government Pleader.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned
Single Judge by which the appellant was directed to restore the 3 rd
time bound higher grade sanctioned to the 1 st writ petitioner as per
Ext.P11 with all consequential benefits and to grant to the 2 nd writ
petitioner the 3rd time bound higher grade on completion of 23
years of service in the scale of pay of Village Industries Officer with
all consequential benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
employees in question, who had filed the writ petition, had entered
service as Lower Division Typist/Lower Division Clerk in 1984 and
1986 respectively. They had been promoted as Upper Division
Clerk on 10.5.1988 and 26.5.1992 respectively. The 2 nd time bound
higher grade was granted to the 1 st petitioner with effect from
WA NO.666 OF 2023
10.5.1998 in the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent and from
16.12.1999 in the case of the 2nd petitioner. Thereafter, regular
promotions were granted to the post of Junior Superintendent on
20.4.2007 and 3.1.2008 respectively. In the case of the 1 st
petitioner, on completion of 23 years of service she was granted the
3rd time bound higher grade with effect from 30.5.2007 in the scale
of pay of Village Industries Officer. The 2 nd petitioner sought the 3rd
time bound higher grade in the scale of pay of Village Industries
Officer as well as the fixation benefit on regular promotion as Junior
Superintendent, but the same were declined. In the case of the 1 st
petitioner, an order was passed cancelling the 3 rd time bound higher
grade granted and threatened recovery. The said orders were
under challenge in the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
petitioners were not entitled to the 3 rd time bound higher grade in
the scale of pay of Village Industries Officer in the light of the
provisions contained in the Pay Revision Order which was produced
as Ext.P1. It is submitted that Ext.R1A circular dated 8.8.2008
specifically provided that the 2nd time bound higher grade could
have been granted only in the scale of pay of Head Clerk and not in
the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent. However, relying on the
WA NO.666 OF 2023
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in identical situation, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice
that the learned Single Judge specifically found that there were two
posts of Head Clerks which were created in the Khadi Board but
were never incorporated in the Regulations. The Khadi Board had
requested the Government to upgrade the post of Head Clerk to the
post of Junior Superintendent or to down grade or abolish the post.
Pursuant to which, the posts were down graded as UDC. It was also
found that by Ext.P7 order, one M. M. Ravindran was granted the
scale of pay of the post of Junior Superintendent as his 2 nd time
bound higher grade and the benefit was made available to other
employees as well. Meanwhile, by Ext.P8, the Government had
informed the Khadi Board that UDC will not be eligible for next time
bound higher grade in the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent
even if the post of Head Clerk is not available. However, by
judgment in W.P.(C) No.25884/2007, Ext.P8 was quashed. Though,
appeal was preferred as W.A. No.593/2013, by judgment dated
16.6.2014, the appeal was also dismissed. It was after considering
all these aspects including the judgments in W.P.(C) No.25884/2007
and in W.A. No.593/2013 that the learned Single Judge had allowed
WA NO.666 OF 2023
the writ petition. These factual aspects of the matter are not
disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that there is no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR
JUDGE
Jvt/7.2.2024
