Kerala High Court
Sajeev M.R vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2025
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 1
2025:KER:46071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025/5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.402 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2024 IN
WP(C) NO.23178/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JOHN N.
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER(ASSEMBLY),
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS :
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ASSEMBLY) ( NOW RETIRED )
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683585.
2 SAJI JACOB
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER(R AND D)KERALA AGRO MACHINERY
CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585,
NEW ADDRESS :
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (R&D) ( NOW RETIRED ) KERALA
AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683585.
3 NAZAR K.N
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER(PURCHASE), KERALA AGRO
MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS :
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (PURCHASE) ( NOW RETIRED )
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 2
2025:KER:46071
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683585.
4 ABDULKANI RAWTHER .P.K
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (MARKETING) KERALA AGRO
MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS :
ASSISTANT ENGINEER (MARKETING) ( NOW RETIRED )
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683585.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SHRI.ASIF N
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SRI.P.C.GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001
2 KERALA AGRO MACHINERYCORPORATION LTD.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, R2
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.JAI MOHAN
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER, R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, ALONG WITH WA.428/2024, 436/2024, THE COURT ON
26.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 3
2025:KER:46071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 428 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2024 IN
WP(C) NO.23656/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 CYRIAC PHILIP
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (QUALITY ASSURANCE) KERALA
AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT MANAGER(QUALITY
ASSURANCE) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683585
2 SASIKUMAR B
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (R AND D), KERALA AGRO
MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585.
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT MANGER (R&D)
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 585
NOW EXPIRED
3 SHAJI JACOB
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (MACHINE SHOP) KERALA AGRO
MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT MANAGER (MACHINE
SHOP) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 4
2025:KER:46071
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683585
4 MOHANAN.N.A
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (PWH) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY
CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT MANAGER (PWH)
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - NOW EXPIRED
5 SUBRAN.P.A
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (STORE),
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT MANAGER (STORE)
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -683585
6 ABRAHAM.PU
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (MAINTANANCE) KERALA AGRO
MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT MANAGER
(MAINTANANCE) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION
LTD., ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683585
NOW EXPIRED
7 PRASANNA KUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (MACHINE SHOP),
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(MACHINE SHOP) KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION
LTD., ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -683585.
8 DON BOSCO VAZ
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (ASSEMBLY),
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 5
2025:KER:46071
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(ASSEMBLY), KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION
LTD., ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -683585
9 SHAJI.P.S
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER (MAINTENANCE)
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : ASSISTANT ENGINEER (MAINTENANCE)
KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683585
10 V.RAVEENDRAN
AGED 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER (ASSEMBLY), KERALA AGRO
MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
NEW ADDRESS : RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER
(ASSEMBLY)KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD.
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -683585
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SHRI.ASIF N
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SRI.P.C.GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001
2 KERALA AGRO CORPORATION LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 6
2025:KER:46071
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.JAI MOHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, ALONG WITH WA.402/2024 AND CONNECTED CASE, THE
COURT ON 26.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 7
2025:KER:46071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 436 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2024 IN
WP(C) NO.25836/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SAJEEV.M.R
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.V.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, PUZHAVOOR RAJA VILAS,
NANDIATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR.P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683585
2 MATHEW.P.T
AGED 63 YEARS
PULIYAMBILLY HOUSE, POOKAITHA NAGAR,
MEKKAD.P.O., ALUVA, PIN-683589
3 PAISON.M.A
AGED 64 YEARS
MULLOTH HOUSE, ATHANI.P.O., ALUVA-683585
4 K.P.GOPI
AGED 64 YEARS
CHARANCHERRY HOUSE, CHENGAMANADU.P.O.,
ALUVA-683578
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SRI.ASIF N
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SRI.P.C.GOPINATH
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 8
2025:KER:46071
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ATHANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER, R1
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, R2
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.RAJA KANNAN
SRI.JAI MOHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, ALONG WITH WA.402/2024 AND CONNECTED CASE, THE
COURT ON 26.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.402/2024& conn.cases 9
2025:KER:46071
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.402/2024, 428/2024, 436/2024]
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
These appeals are filed from a common judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2024, disposing of three Writ
Petitions raising intrinsically connected questions for consideration.
They are hence considered and disposed of together.
2. Appellants are Assistant Engineers under the 2 nd
respondent, M/s. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. Writ
Petitions leading to these appeals were filed by the appellants inter
alia seeking to quash Exts.P5, P6 and P7 orders in W.P(C)
Nos.25836 of 2019, 23656 of 2019 and 23178 of 2019 respectively
and to declare that the basic pay of the appellants in the promoted
post of Assistant Engineer be re-fixed following the principles of
Rule 28A and 37(a) of the KSR. A direction to the respondents to
protect the salary of the appellants by stepping up their basic pay in
the promoted post of Assistant Engineer as on their date of
promotion, and to revise their basic pay on subsequent revision of
2025:KER:46071
pay and to release the arrears of salary due to them had also been
sought.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions
referring to Rule 28A Part I KSR which stipulates that where an
officer holding a post in a substantive, temporary or officiating
capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive, temporary or
officiating capacity to another post carrying a higher time - scale of
pay, his initial pay in the higher time scale of pay shall be fixed at
the stage next above the pay notionally arrived at in the lower time-
scale of pay by increasing the actual pay, drawn by him in the lower
time-scale by one increment. It was held that the said provision is
applicable when an officer holding a post is promoted to a post
which is having a higher time scale and in the case of the
appellants, who were working under a different category as
workmen, and had been promoted to an officers' category and
placed on a different time scale, the said Rule of KSR shall not have
any application. It was also held that if the appellants were
aggrieved by the Rules for fixation of pay, the same ought to have
been challenged in time and as the appellants had not chosen to
2025:KER:46071
challenge Ext.P8 order dated 10.02.1999 (The exhibits mentioned
herein are those produced in W.P.(C) No.23178 of 2019) at any
point of time and even in any of the Writ Petitions filed and had
instead sought for a declaration that the pay has to be fixed based
on Rules 28A and 37(a) of Part I KSR, the claim of the appellants
cannot succeed. Holding inter alia that an employee cannot dictate
terms regarding pay fixation of an organisation, the W.P.(C)s were
dismissed. Aggrieved by such dismissal, these Writ Appeals have
been filed.
4. Heard Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellants and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Advocate
on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing
the Writ Petitions overlooking the fundamental principle that if a law
is enacted for a particular purpose, the same should be followed
and no executive officer can issue an order ignoring the statutory
rule/byelaw. The service conditions of officers are governed by the
Managing Director's order dated 29.01.1975 and byelaw, and as per
2025:KER:46071
Rule 28A of the orders, the same is to be followed while fixing the
salary of workmen when promoted to the post of officer. The
learned Single Judge had erred in properly appreciating the
Managing Director's order of 1975. The Managing Director does
not have any power to issue any order in his personal capacity to
declare Rule 28A as not applicable for fixation of the salary of
officers. Thus, the appellants, as a result of promotion, suffered
huge financial losses every month, and the same had been
continuing till their retirement. The salary of a promoted officer can
only be fixed under Rule 28A, and the learned Single Judge erred in
overlooking the same. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand
Soni [(1996) 1 SCC 562], wherein the word 'promote' had been
held to mean "to advance to a higher position, grade or honour".
Promotion thus not only covers advancement to a higher position or
rank, but also implies advancement to a higher grade. It was also
contended that in service law too, the expression promotion had
been understood in the wider sense, and it has been held that
promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post. It
2025:KER:46071
is thus contended that the Managing Director had issued Ext.P8
order dated 10.02.1999 without cancelling the Managing Director's
order of 1975.
6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd
respondent contended that the judgment of the learned Single
Judge does not call for any interference since the structure of pay
and dearness allowances of the officers and workmen is completely
different. It was found difficult to directly fix the pay in the promoted
post from the workmen cadre to the officer cadre and therefore, for
fixing pay or promotion from the workmen category to the officer
category, instead of basic pay, pay and dearness allowance drawn
in the lower cost were taken as a unit, and a notional increment in
the lower scale was added to this unit of pay and dearness
allowance. Since the scale pay of workmen and officer categories is
entirely different, the pay fixation for promotion from workmen to the
officer category was very difficult. To solve this issue, Ext.P8 was
formulated with effect from 10.02.1999. As per Ext.P8, the fixation
of pay on promotion from workmen category to officers category is
done instead of basic pay alone, pay and dearness allowance in the
2025:KER:46071
lower scale along with a notional increment has been added for
getting a consolidated unit and the figure thus obtained will be set
up as pay and dearness allowance and to be fixed in the officer
scale of pay to the nearest basic pay possible. Hence, the said
fixation will not result in any loss while carrying out the pay fixation
of employees from the worker to the officer category. It is submitted
that there is no anomaly in the fixation of basic pay salary of the
appellants. Ext.P5 is not applicable in the case of promotion from
workmen cadre to officer cadre, and it is applicable only on
promotion of an employee from a lower post to a post of a higher
time-scale of pay of various officer cadre posts or workmen cadre
posts. Ext.P8, on the other hand, is applicable for the fixation of pay
of employees on promotion from a worker category post to an
officer category post. Before promotion as an Assistant Engineer,
the appellants were promoted to the post of a Chief Mechanic and
at the time of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, the basic
pay and dearness allowance of the appellants in the post of a Chief
Mechanic had been protected while fixing their pay in the promoted
post of Assistant Engineer.
2025:KER:46071
7. We have heard both sides and have considered the
contentions put forth. The scale of pay for workmen and officers
categories is entirely different. It is the specific contention of the 2nd
respondent that there is no anomaly in the fixation of the basic pay
salary of the appellants and that Ext.P5 is not applicable in the case
of promotion from the workman cadre to the officer cadre. It is
contended that the same applies only to the promotion of an
employee from a lower post to a post of a higher time scale of pay
of various officer cadre posts or workman cadre posts. As
contended by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, Ext.P8 is
a Rule applicable to the fixation of pay of employees on promotion
from a worker category post to an officer category post. Before the
promotion as Assistant Engineer, the appellants were promoted to
the post of a Chief Mechanic. At the time of promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer, the basic pay and earnest allowance of the
appellants in the post of Chief Mechanic had been protected while
fixing their pay in the promoted post of Assistant Engineer. As
rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have
not chosen to challenge Ext.P8 in the Writ Petitions. They have, on
2025:KER:46071
the other hand, sought a declaration that the pay has to be fixed
based on Rule 28A and 37A of Part I KSR. Unless there is a
challenge to the Ext.P8 pay fixation order issued by the Managing
Director, the appellants cannot be heard to contend as aforesaid.
We find merit in the conclusion to the said effect arrived at by the
learned Single Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the
findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments.
These Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed, reserving the rights
and granting liberty to the appellants to pursue their remedies, as
per the law.
No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:46071
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 2286593/PU-
B1/145/2022/FINANCE DT 20/06/2024
ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE
DEPARTMENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO
P.U3/305/2022- AGRICULTURE DT
26/07/2024 ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (AGRICULTURE PU) DEPARTMENT
TO 1ST RESPONDENT
