Kerala High Court
Arun Kumar V.R vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 21 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6409 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
1 ARUN KUMAR V.R METER READER, KARUKACHAL ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
2 BIJU B METER READER, PALLICKATHODU SECTION,KERALA
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, PONKUNNAM
DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 506.
3 DHANOOP VIJAY METER READER, VAKATHANAM ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
4 VIPIN A.K METER READER, VAKATHANAM ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
5 BINU B METER READER, PATHANADU ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
6 ANEESH P.S METER READER, PATHANADU ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
7 AFSAL M.B METER READER, KARUKACHAL ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
8 PRASANTH P.H METER READER, KARUKACHAL ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
9 SOJAN THOMAS METER READER, KARUKACHAL ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
W.P.(C) No.6409 of 2018 2
10 ANOOP KUMAR P.N METER READER, PAMPADY ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
PONKUNNAM DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 506.
11 SAJEEV KUMAR V.P METER READER, PAMPADY ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
PONKUNNAM DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 506.
12 RAJESH K.S METER READER, PAMPADY ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
PONKUNNAM DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 506.
13 LIJIN MON NO. LALU METER READER,
VAKATHANAM ELECTRICAL SECTION,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
14 RAJEESH P METER READER, MANIMALA ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
15 REJEESH K.R METER READER, MANIMALA ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
16 ANAS K.S METER READER, MANIMALA ELECTRICAL
SECTION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,
CHANGANACHERRY DIVISION,KOTTAYAM - 686 540.
BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHIBHAVANAM,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEERHRM THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED, VAIDHYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
W.P.(C) No.6409 of 2018 3
3 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALLOM P.O,
KOTTAYAM - 686 007.
BY ADV SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
SRI. K. S. ANIL, S. C., KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6409 of 2018 4
EASWARAN S. , J.
-------------------------
W.P. (C) No.6409 of 2018
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 to the
extent it denies increase of the daily wages to the persons
working in the post of Meter Readers on temporary basis including
the petitioners. The averments in the writ petition shows that the
petitioners were being engaged from time to time basis as Meter
Readers on a consolidated pay of Rs.10,000-12,000- per month.
The regular Meter Readers are paid the scale of pay of Rs.22,085-
47,815 per month and therefore it is alleged that there is a
discrimination. The petitioners also relies on Ext.P3 and contended
that a decision was taken by the Full Time Directors in its meeting
held on 3.11.2017 to hike the rates by 20% . However, that
benefit has also not granted to the petitioners.
2. The respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit in
which it is stated that the petitioners are not being directly
employed by the KSEB. However, they are independent
contractors who are responded to open tender floated by the
KSEB for taking meter readings of the consumers. According to
the Board, the petitioners are not eligible for wages but eligible
for contract amount clearly specified in the contract agreement. It
is also contended that the petitioners cannot claim the scale of
pay in par with the regular employee and therefore there is no
justification in the prayer made in the writ petition.
3. I have heard Adv. Aparna Menon, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Anil K.S. the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have considered the
rival submissions raised across the Bar.
4. The claim of the petitioners for a scale of pay in par with
the regular employee should necessarily fail without any further
adjudication by this Court. The petitioners are not appointed on
the basis of a regular selection but on a contract basis. Even
though the duties of the petitioners may be par with the regular
appointees, there is no justification on the part of the petitioners
to claim that their pay scale should also be increased with that of
the regularly appointed Meter Readers. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioners justified in contending that as per the
meeting held by the Full Time Directors on 3.11.2017, there was
a decision to increase the rates by 20%. She further submitted
that the petitioners are entitled for a similar treatment as being
agreed to be done by the Board in their meeting held on
3.11.2017 and as ordered by Ext.P3 dated 13.11.2017.
5. This Court finds that the petitioners are prima facie
justified in raising such contention before this Court because the
petitioners who are Meter Readers based on a contract basis are
alone excluded from the purview of Ext.P3 order. However having
said so, this Court cannot taken the task of ordering an increase
in the wages or the rates paid to the petitioners who are working
on a contract basis. This essentially is a matter which should gain
the attention of the Board. The revision of rates on which the
petitioners who are appointed on contract basis will have to be
definitely judged by the Board. Therefore, this Court has no other
alternative but to decline interference to Ext.P3 to the extent it
denies the petitioners the same right of a regular employee.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move before the
respondent Board for seeking similar relief that are decided to be
given in the meeting held on 03.11.2017 and as ordered on
13.11.2017. If any such representation is filed with a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the
respondent Board shall take up and consider the same
sympathetically and try to resolve the issue as early as possible at
any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of such representation. It is made clear that before taking a
decision an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the
petitioners as well as the affected parties.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6409/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SLIP OF SPOT BILLING WORK DONE BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF LATEST
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE B.O(FTD) NO.2819/D(T &
SO)/T5/2016-17/CONTRACT WAGES DATED 13.11.2017.
