Kerala High Court
Anoop T vs Kochi Metro Rail Limited on 14 August, 2025
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 1 2025:KER:60826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 14
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA,
1947
WA NO. 1885 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.05.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.23925 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
NOOP T.,
A
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. THULASIDASAN N., RESIDING AT SREE
NILAYAM, KUZHIVILA, IRINCHAYAM P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695561
Y ADVS.
B
SMT.JOHN NELLIMALA SARAI
SHRI.MOHAMMED SAGHEER
SMT.ABIYA MARIYAM MATHEW
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
OCHI METRO RAIL LIMITED,
K
4TH FLOOR, JLN METRO STATION, KALOOR,
KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, PIN - 682017
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 2 2025:KER:60826
BY ADV SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
HIS
T WRIT
APPEAL
HAVING
COME
UP
FOR
ADMISSION
ON
11.08.2025,
THE
COURT ON
14.08.2025 DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 3 2025:KER:60826
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. Thepresentintra-courtappealfiledunderSection5of
the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated
26.05.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.23925 of 2023, whereby the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
3.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethattheappellantjoined
the services of the Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL) as
Assistant Manager (Power and Traction) (E2 grade) on
04.10.2016 on an initial contract for three yearsonIndustrial
Dearness Allowance (IDA) scale of pay as per Ext.P1 order of
appointment. The appellant was grantedextensionofcontract
fora furtherperiod ofthree yearswith effectfrom04.10.2019
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 4 2025:KER:60826
along with a change to the next higher grade to the post of
Manager (Power and Traction) (E3 Grade) with IDA payscale,
thus served in KMRL for six years continuously without any
break. At the time of completion of the contract, he was
drawing IDA scale with a basic pay of Rs.63,660/-.
4.Inthemeanwhile,therespondentvideExt.P3issuedan
advertisement notifying vacancy to the post of Assistant
Manager (Power and Traction) on regular basis. The ground
raisedinthewritpetitionwasthat,insimilarsituations,other
employees had managed to secure permanent appointments
with protection of the last pay drawn while working on a
contractualbasis.Theappellant,however,hadnooptionbutto
apply for a lower-grade post when it was advertisedfor open
recruitmentinorder toobtainregular employment. Sincethe
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 5 2025:KER:60826
pay protection on the basic pay of Rs.63,660/- which he was
drawing while on contract basis was not protected by the
respondent afterregular appointmentinthe postofAssistant
Manager (Power and Traction), he had preferred a
representationtotheAuthorities, whichwasrejectedbythem
onthegroundthatappellantdidnotmovefromacontractpost
to a regular one but in fact hevoluntarily appliedfor afresh
recruitmentasper Ext.P3notificationforalower,regularpost
of Assistant Manager (Power and Traction) (E2 grade) which
was a fresh appointment and not a confirmation or
regularization of his contract. The respondentcontendedthat
the appellant has nolegal right toclaimthe higher payas he
was drawing while on a fixed term contract. Theyalso stated
that Ext.P6 e.mail conveying pay protection was erroneous, a
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 6 2025:KER:60826
clerical mistake, sent by oversight, which was subsequently
correctedandstoppedonthesameday.Itwasneverprocessed
oracteduponwhichisevidentfromthesubsequentpaybillsof
the appellant. The appellant started demanding a higher pay
scale only after he was appointed on regular post. On
resignation of the appellant, his full and finalsettlementwas
done separately for the contract and regular periods. Being
aggrieved,theappellanthadfiledthewritpetitionchallenging
the same before the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ
petition, concluded thatthe contractualappointment had not
beenregularized. The appellant had appliedtothepostafresh
knowing fully well that the payscalewould belower down to
whathewasreceivingasacontractualemployee,thereforethe
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 7 2025:KER:60826
principleofestoppelwouldnotapplytothecasewheremistake
was made but not acted upon.Secondly, the appellant cannot
claimnegative parity merelybecause afewerroneouscasesin
thepastgrantedpayprotectionuponmovingtoaregularpost.
Therefore,theappellant'sclaimwasnotaccepted,andthewrit
petition was dismissed. Hence, the appellant filed the writ
appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
thelearnedSingleJudgewasmisledintobelievingthatthepay
fixation granted to some others in earlier occasions was an
illegal benefitand thelearnedSingle Judgedismissedthewrit
petition without considering the provisions of statutory
guidelines issued by the Government of India, Department of
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 8 2025:KER:60826
Public Enterprises which governs the respondent. He,
therefore, prayed that the writ appeal be allowed.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent opposed the afore prayer made by the appellant
andsubmittedthatExt.P6e.mailconveyingpayprotectionwas
erroneous, a clerical mistake, sent by oversight, which was
subsequently corrected and stopped on the same day.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that there was a decision
taken to protect the pay scale of the appellant. He further
submitted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not
apply where a mistake was made but not acted upon. The
learned Single Judge was right indismissing thewrit petition
and the present writ appeal also deserves to be dismissed.
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 9 2025:KER:60826
8. Heard thelearnedcounsel for thepartiesandperused
the records.
9. ThoughtherespondentissuedExt.P6e.mailconveying
pay protection, thesamewas notimplementedatanypointof
timeand it was withdrawn.Therefore, there isnoviolation of
principles of promissory estoppel. Granting similar benefit to
some of the employees on earlier occasionswouldnotentitle
the appellant to claim parity, particularly in the light of the
Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Ram
kumar Mann [1997 KHC 509: (1997) 3 SCC 321] , wherein it is
held that it is a trite law that a person cannot claim equal
treatmentonthebasisofanillegalbenefitgrantedtosomeone
else. The learned Single Judge was right in coming to the
conclusion that the appointment of the appellant on regular
W.A.No.1885 of 2025 10 2025:KER:60826
basis was based on an advertisement against the sanctioned
vacant post which has nothing to do with the contractual
appointment of theappellantandthatthebenefitonthebasis
of some illegal benefit granted to someone would not be a
groundto claim parity.Therefore, the judgmentpassedbythe
learned Single Judge does not suffer fromany error apparent
on the face of the record.
Accordingly,thepresentwritappealbeingbereftofmerit
and substance, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
MC/12.8
