Kerala High Court
I. Abdul Nasser vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd on 19 September, 2025
WA NO.912/2024 1
2025:KER:69690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/28TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 912 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.23765/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
I. ABDUL NASSER
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.ISMAIL KHANI, FINANCE OFFICER,
(MEMBER, RE-STRUCTURING COMMITTEE), OFFICE OF THE
FINANCIAL ADVISER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SHRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
WA NO.912/2024 2
2025:KER:69690
2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADV SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, R1 & R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.06.2025, THE COURT ON 19.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.912/2024 3
2025:KER:69690
JUDGMENT
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
18.06.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23765 of
2018. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P. (C).
2. Appellant had filed the W.P.(C) contending that he, who is
working as the Finance Officer in the Kerala State Electricity Board
(KSEB), had been denied monetary benefits consequent to the
notional promotion granted to him. Appellant's contentions in brief
were as follows: Appellant had been promoted as the Assistant
Finance Officer on 03.05.2008. Subsequently, upon completion of
one year of service as Assistant Finance Officer, he became eligible
for promotion as Finance Officer. However, the said promotion to
which he was legally entitled was denied to him and two of the juniors
were promoted as financial officers on 01.03.2011. After repeated
representations pointing out the said anomaly, the respondents
promoted the appellant as Financial Officer retrospectively with effect
from 01.03.2011, but without monetary benefits. Since the nature of
2025:KER:69690
duties of the Assistant Finance Officer and the Finance Officer are
the same, and as he had been discharging the duties of the Finance
Officer from 03.05.2008 onwards, the appellant claimed that he is
entitled to get all consequential benefits in the post of Finance Officer
from 01.03.2011, and the denial of the same was illegal. He thus filed
the W.P.(C) seeking the following reliefs:
"i) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate
order or direction quashing Ext.P13 communication
No.Estt.III/1613/2015 dated 17.01.2018 issued by the 1 st
respondent as it is arbitrary and illegal;
ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate
order or direction quashing Ext.P15 communication
No.Estt.III/1613/2015 dated 09.07.2018 issued by the 1 st
respondent on behalf of the 2 nd respondent as it is arbitrary
and void ;
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the
respondents to give all consequential benefits attached to
the post of Finance Officer with effect from 01.03.2011
since there is no change in the nature of duties of Assistant
2025:KER:69690
Finance Officer and Finance Officer ;
iv) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get all
consequential benefits as Finance Officer with effect from
01.03.2011 since the petitioner has been discharging the
duties of Finance Officer from 03.05.2008 even though his
designation was Assistant Finance Officer ;
v) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as
is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the
case."
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C), inter alia
holding that there was no illegality or impropriety in the Board
deciding to restrict the monetary benefits from the date of joining in
the promoted post and that the petitioner had not made out any case
warranting interference. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, this Writ
Appeal is filed.
4. Heard Dr.K.P.Satheesan, Senior Advocate, for the appellant
and Sri.M.K. Thankappan, Advocate, for the respondent KSEB.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that
the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the W.P.(C). It is
2025:KER:69690
contended that, as per the Rules that were in force during the
relevant period, the Assistant Finance Officer, on completion of one
year service, is eligible for promotion to the post of Finance Officer.
Since the appellant had been promoted as Assistant Finance Officer
on 03.05.2008, he became eligible for promotion as Finance Officer
on 02.05.2009. However, the said promotion was not given to the
appellant in spite of the availability of vacancies. Realising this
mistake, the same was sought to be rectified by the Board by
notionally promoting the appellant as Finance Officer with effect from
01.03.2011. Taking note of the fact that the appellant had been
discharging the duties of Finance Officer even before and after the
promotion, he ought to have been granted the salary and other
benefits from 01.03.2011 onwards. The denial in the said respect is
discriminatory and illegal. The learned Single Judge had failed to take
note of the same. It is contended that the principle of 'no pay, no
work' mentioned by the learned Single Judge has no applicability
insofar as the appellant was discharging the duties of the Finance
Officer even before the promotion. The learned Senior Counsel thus
sought to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and to
2025:KER:69690
allow the Writ Petition.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the KSEB defended the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the same
does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the appellant's
contention that he was not given promotion despite eligibility and
availability of vacancies is incorrect. The appellant had been
sanctioned leave without allowance with effect from 22.07.2009, i.e.
just after completion of one year of service in the post of AFO, and he
went on leave without allowance (LWA) to take up a job in the private
sector. During the course of his LWA, the Board issued a promotion
order to the post of Finance Officer on 11.06.2010 and accordingly,
14 Assistant Finance Officers were promoted as Finance Officer. The
promotion of the appellant was not deliberately denied by the board.
Hence, the contention put forth by the appellant is misleading, and
the learned Single Judge had properly taken note of the same. Even
though the appellant was sanctioned the LWA for 5 years, he
rejoined the service on 23.02.2011, after cancelling the unavailed
portion of the leave. It is submitted that the appellant had not been
denied promotion illegally, and he could not be included in the
2025:KER:69690
promotion list as he was not in the Board service at the time of the
procedures being undertaken. However, the Board had considered
his request positively and had effected notional promotion with
retrospective effect from 01.03.2011. The duties and responsibilities
of an Assistant Finance Officer and a Finance Officer are distinct and
different, and hence, the appellant is eligible for monetary benefit only
from the date of joining the post of Finance Officer. Had the appellant
remained in the service of the Board during 06/2010 i.e., during the
period of his LWA for taking up a job in the private sector, he ought to
have been promoted to the post of Finance Officer as on 11.06.2010,
when the other 14 Assistant Finance Officers, his seniors as well as
juniors, were promoted as Finance Officers. It was thus due to the
fault of the appellant himself that he could not be granted promotion
on 11.06.2010. An employee can be promoted to the next cadre only
if vacancies exist in the promoted post. As far as the KSEB is
concerned, there are only 24 sanctioned posts of finance officers.
Even if an employee has to do work of a more or less similar nature
as that of the promoted post, as per the Rules, that employee cannot
be promoted to that post that promotion post over and above the
2025:KER:69690
sanctioned number of posts. Hence, even if the duties discharged by
the appellant are more or less similar to those of the Finance Officer,
it cannot be treated as a ground to claim monetary benefits in the
post of Finance Officer. Placing reliance on Rule 23 Part I KSR, the
learned counsel submitted that the appellant is not entitled to get
monetary benefits for the period till he actually joins the promoted
post.
7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the
respective contentions put forth. The prayer in the W.P.(C) was to
quash Ext.P13 dated 17.01.2018 and Ext.P15 dated 09.07.2018. A
direction to grant all consequential benefits attached to the post of
Finance Officer with effect from 01.03.2011 was also claimed. This
was sought to be affirmed by stating that there is no change in the
nature of the duties of the Assistant Finance Officer and Finance
Officer. It is relevant to note here that it was vide Ext.P10 order dated
31.07.2017 that it was decided that the appellant shall be given
notional promotion to the post of Finance Officer with retrospective
effect from 01.03.2011. It had been specified in Ext.P10 itself that his
pay will be fixed notionally with effect from 01.03.2011 in the cadre of
2025:KER:69690
Finance Officer and monetary benefit with effect from the date of
joining in the promoted post. It is relevant to note that there is no
challenge in the W.P.(C) as against Ext.P10, which is dated as early
as 31.07.2017. Exts.P13 and P15, sought to be quashed in the W.P.
(C), had been issued much later in furtherance of Ext.P10. Thus, the
very sustainability of the prayers in the W.P.(C) without challenging
Ext.P10 is precarious. Be that as it may, admittedly, the appellant
was on LWA from 22.07.2009 and rejoined only on 23.02.2011. It is
during the interregnum that the promotions were effected to the post
of Finance Officer vide Ext.R1(a) dated 11.06.2010. Nevertheless,
albeit late, vide Ext.P10, the appellant was granted promotion with
effect from 01.03.2011, specifically stating that the monetary benefits
will be applicable only from the date of joining service. We find merit
in the contention put forth by the KSEB that the appellant had not
been denied promotion and that he couldn't be included in the
promotion list as he was not in the board service at the relevant time
when the procedures were underway. Further, it is the specific
contention of the KSEB that the duties and responsibilities of the
Assistant Finance Officer and Finance Officer are distinct and
2025:KER:69690
different. Nothing has been produced by the appellant to controvert
the said contention of the Board. In the said facts and circumstances,
the finding of the learned Single Judge that, admittedly, from
01.03.2011, the appellant never worked in the promoted post and
that it was not a case where the Board denied the appellant a
retrospective promotion cannot be termed as illegal or erroneous.
The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
