Kerala High Court
Unnikrishnan K vs Instrumentation Limited on 14 February, 2025
W.P.(C).No.126 of 2022 1
2025:KER:12639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 126 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 UNNIKRISHNAN K.
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. MANI NAIR, JUNIOR ENGINEER (RETD), REF NO.
7842, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST,
RESIDING AT KANNAMPARIYARATH HOUSE, ULLAS NAGAR,
CHEDAYANKALAI, KANJIKODE WEST PALAKKAD 678 623.
2 KANNADASAN C.R.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. C. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUNIOR ENGINEER (RETD), REF.
NO. 7837, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST,
RESIDING AT SREEMANDIRAM, KALIKAVU ROAD, MANKARA
R.S. (P.O.,) PALAKKAD 678 613.
3 M.A. THOMAS,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.M.K. ANDREWS, SENIOR ENGINEER (RETD), REF. NO.
7921, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST,
RESIDING AT KUNDAKKAL HOUSE, S.N. PURAM P.O.,
PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM 686 502.
4 R. ASOKKUMAR,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.A. RAMANKUTTY, JUNIOR ENGINEER (RETD), REF.
NO. 7778, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST,
RESIDING AT 13/546, SOWPARNIKA, MANKAVU, PALAKKAD
KERALA 678 001.
5 SATHEESH KUMAR S.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. SUKUMARAN K.N., ENGINEER (RETD), REF. NO.
7790, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST,
RESIDING AT INDEEVARAM, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR,
PUDUSSERY P.O., PALAKKAD 678 623.
6 PREMACHANDRAN G.,
AGED 61 YEARS
W.P.(C).No.126 of 2022 2
2025:KER:12639
S/O. GOVINDAN.C., ENGINEER (RETD), REF. NO. 7869,
INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST, RESIDING AT
CHENGODE HOUSE, MANAKKALPADI, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI
POST, PALAKKAD 678 574.
7 JAYAKUMARI.S.,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. UNNIKRISHAN P.R, JUNIOR ENGINEER (RETD), REF.
NO. 7772, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST,
RESIDING AT DIVYA HOUSE, CHEDAYANKALAI, KANJIKODE
WEST PALAKKAD 678 623.
8 SOMAKUMARAN P.V.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN P., JUNIOR ENGINEER (RETD), REF.
NO. 7835, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST,
RESIDING AT 'DEVADATHAM' SARAYU NAGAR 16, CHANDRA
NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD 678 007.
9 UNNIKRISHNAN.M.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.K. NARAYANAN NAIR, JUNIOR ENGINEER (RETD),
REF. NO. 7904, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE
WEST, RESIDING AT 22/850, PADMA SREE, INDIRA
NAGAR, KUNNATHURMEDU P.O., PALAKKAD 678 013.
0 S. NAGARAJAN,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. EI.A. SREENIVASAN, JUNIOR ENGINEER ACCOUNTS
(RETD), REF. NO. 7751 INSTRUCTION LIMITED,
KANJIKODE WEST, RESIDING AT 405, MATIRA, PBEL
CITY, KELAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 603 103.
11 SARADAMBAL P.S.,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. VISWANATHAN P.V., JUNIOR OFFICER P & A
(RETD), REF. NO. 7846 INSTRUCTION LIMITED,
KANJIKODE WEST, RESIDING AT 1/784, KALCHETTY
STREET, KALPATHY P.O., PALAKKAD 678 003.
12 ANURATHNAMANI, K.,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAN PARAMBILTHODI, JUNIOR OFFICE P & A
(RETD), REF. NO. 7847, INSTRUCTION LIMITED,
KANJIKODE WEST, RESIDING AT P.O. VALLIKKUNNU NORTH
, VIA KADALUNDI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM 673 314.
13 SURESH KUMAR M.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.N. NARAYANAN, JUNIOR OFFICER P & A (RETD),
W.P.(C).No.126 of 2022 3
2025:KER:12639
REF. NO. 78 04, INSTRUCTION LIMITED, KANJIKODE
WEST, RESIDING AT CHANDRAM VALIYATH HOUSE,
IYYAMKODE PO, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE 673 504.
BY ADVS.
R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
TINY THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 INSTRUMENTATION LIMITED,
PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING
DIRECTOR, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD 678 623.
2 THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER AND UNIT HEAD,
INSTRUMENTATION LIMITED, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD
678 623.
3 UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRY, NE DELHI 110 001,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY.
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
BY ADVS.
V.KRISHNA MENON
PRINSUN PHILIP
J.SURYA
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.126 of 2022 4
2025:KER:12639
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
--------------------
W.P.(C).No.126 of 2022
--------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court
seeking a direction to the respondents to promote
them atleast from the dates on which their juniors
were promoted with effect from retrospective date
as evident from Exts.P5 to P9 by treating them as
employees in service at the time of effecting
promotion.
2. Petitioners are employees of the 1st
respondent company and have retired from service on
various dates. The 1st petitioner retired from
service on 31.05.2020, 2nd petitioner on 31.05.2019,
3rd petitioner on 31.05.2019, 4th petitioner on
31.01.2019, 5th petitioner on 28.02.2019, 6th
petitioner on 31.05.2020, 7th petitioner on
31.11.2017, 8th petitioner on 31.05.2019, 9th
petitioner on 31.11.2019, 10th petitioner on
30.06.2017, 11th petitioner on 30.11.2019, 12th
2025:KER:12639
petitioner on 30.04.2019 and the 13 th
petitioner was
retired from service on 31.05.2019.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that
though they were entitled for promotion while in
service, the 1st respondent did not promote them
till their retirement. It is further contended that
it is a normal practice of the 1 st respondent while
effecting promotion of their employees to give
retrospective dates of promotion even if they have
retired from service or died subsequently, as
evident from Exts.P3 and P4, which revealed that
those persons who have already retired from
service/died were also granted retrospective
promotion. It is the contention of the petitioners
that in the matter of promotion the 1 st respondent
has singled out the petitioners and discrimination
has been shown to them for the reason that they
retired from service. Though petitioners 1 to 4,8
and 10 have submitted Exts.P10 to P10(e)
representations before the 2nd respondent, no action
has been taken on the same.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been
2025:KER:12639
filed by the 1 st
respondent contending that the writ
petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches in as much as the petitioners were
superannuated during the period 2017 to 2020 and
they are seeking retrospective promotion with
effect from 2014-2015 by approaching this Court
only on 2022. Since the Corporate Office of the 1 st
respondent at Kota has not declared promotions from
2014-2015 there was dissatisfaction amongst the
employees working in the 1st respondent at Palakkad
as the same was only the unit performing and
operating as on date. The delay led to several
officers resigning from the 1st respondent. Thus for
the survival of the Company and in order to
maintain the hierarchy for sustaining the
operations with minimum financial burden, it was
found necessary to implement promotion for the
employees who were on the rolls of the Company.
Hence taking into consideration the aspirations of
the employees, need for continuance and grown of
the Company, in the year the approval of the
Competent Authority was obtained on 18.01.2021 for
2025:KER:12639
promotion of the employees who were on the rolls of
the Company as on the date of declaration of
promotion of various cadres and promotions were
granted with retrospective effect. Based on the
representations submitted by some retired employees
claiming that they are entitled for promotion with
retrospective effect before the 3rd respondent Union
of India, they have submitted R1(a) reply wherein
it is observed as follows:
"promotion is an internal process of the
Company which is formulated based on the
continuance and growth of the Company. The
promotions were not operated in IL from 2014
onwards. After review of the policy in 2020
it was decided with the approval of the
competent authority to consider promotions
based on the recommendations of DPC and for
those who are on the rolls of the Company.
Ministry is of the view that the decision
taken by ILP to grant promotion only to those
eligible employees who were on the rolls as on
the date of declaration of the promotion is in
order and in terms with the extant rules and
guidelines on the subject matter."
It is further submitted that none of the employees
at all levels who had retired from service before
the date of declaration of promotion were
considered for promotion. As the petitioners were
2025:KER:12639
not on the rolls of the Company on the date of
declaration of promotion, they were not considered
for promotion and therefore, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the action taken by the 1 st
respondent in this regard.
5. A detailed reply has been filed by the
petitioners in answer to the contentions taken in
the counter affidavit. It is contending that there
is no delay in approaching before this Court
seeking promotion. The respondents 1 and 2 have
given promotion for the year 2021 on 30.6.2022 and
increased allowances for the employees were also
announced. Therefore, the contention that the
Company that there is financial difficulties also
cannot be accepted.
6. I have heard the rival contentions on both
sides.
7. All the petitioners have retired from
service but they claim retrospective promotion
without taking into consideration the fact that
they have retired from service as it was the
practice in the 1st respondent Company as evident
2025:KER:12639
from Exts.P3 and P4. Learned counsel for the
petitioners would point out that in Exts.P3 and P4
those persons who have already retired from
service/died were also granted retrospective
promotion. Admittedly petitioners are claiming
promotion from 2014 onwards, but they are filed the
present writ petition only in the year 2022. In
the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent
it is submitted that earlier, steps were taken to
grant promotion with retrospective effect. But
Ext.R1(a) communication issued by the Government of
India would show that the promotions were not
operated in the 1st respondent Company from 2014
onwards. After review of the policy in 2020, it
was decided with the approval of competent
authority to consider promotions based on the
recommendation of DPC and for those who are on the
rolls of the company and the decision taken by the
1st respondent Company to grant promotion only those
eligible employees who were on the roll as on the
declaration of promotion is in order. The stand
taken by the 1st respondent Company is that after
2025:KER:12639
the review of the policy in 2020 a decision was
taken with the approval of the competent authority
to grant promotion only for those employees who
were on the roll as on the declaration of
promotion. That is the reason why the petitioners
were not granted retrospective promotion take into
consideration the fact that they have already
retired from service.
8. Taking into consideration the above facts and
circumstances and that the decision is a policy
decision of the Company, I find no reason to
interfere and issue any direction as sought for in
the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE
pm
2025:KER:12639
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 126/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
IST RESPONDENT BEARING REF. NO.
CMD/T/GEN/2016 DATED 08.12.2016.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.
2/86 IN MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED
18.07.1986.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. IL/CPD/P-
205/2KII/2015-16 DATED 26.05.2015 ISSUED
BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. IL/CPD/P-
205/2K12/2015-16 DATED 11.08.2015 ISSUED
BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ILP/PERS/DPC/2014 DATED 02.02.2201
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT
OF GOVINDANKUTTY.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ILP/PERS/DPC/2020 DATED 15.04.2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ILP/PERS/DPC/2019 DATED 13.04.2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ILP/PERS/DPC/2015 DATED 15.02.2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ILP/PERS/DPC/2020 DATED 15.04.2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.04.2021.
Exhibit P10(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2021.
2025:KER:12639
Exhibit P10 (B) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2021.
Exhibit P10 (C) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.04.2021.
Exhibit P10 (D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER BEFORE
THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 27.010.2021.
Exhibit P10 (E) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE I0TH PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2021.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY
THE IST PETITIONER FROM THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 19.04.2021.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT VIDE COMMUNICATION NO.
ILP/P&A/RTI/2021 DATED 16.7.2021 TO THE
IST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY
THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT, 2005 DATED 16.08.2021
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE IST
RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER DATED
10.11.2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Ext.R1(a) Copy of the letter dated 24.12.2021 of
the third respondent.
