Kerala High Court
P.Kannan (O.A. Grade-Ii vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 June, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17456 of 2004(C)
1. P.KANNAN (O.A. GRADE-II,
... Petitioner
2. M.G.VIJAYAN (O.A. GRADE-II,
3. K.RAJAN (O.A. GRADE-II,
4. RADHAMMA,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.17456 OF 2004
------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners were originally selected for the post of Office Attender in the KSEB, but for want of vacancies, were accommodated in the post of CLR workers. Ext.P1 is the order that was issued by the first respondent accommodating the Ist petitioner in the post of CLR worker. Subsequently, he was regularized in the post of Office Attendant as per Ext.P2 proceeding.
2. Petitioners submit that they were initially granted increments for the period they worked as CLR workers. However, that was discontinued later. They submit that, in view of the provisions contained in Ext.P3 order they are entitled to be paid increments for the period they worked as CLR workers. When the said benefit was discontinued, they took up the matter with WP(c).No.17456/04 2 the Board and finally the matter was considered and by Ext.P6 the claim was rejected. It is challenging Ext.P6 and seeking a direction for the continued payment of increment that this writ petition has been filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Board. According to the respondents, Ext.P3 order relied on is inapplicable to the petitioners. It is also stated that the system of granting increment for CLR period of service has been discontinued by the Board based on the Government Order dated 30.9.1994 and 15.12.1998 which was adopted by the Board. It is also their case that absorption of the Ist petitioner as Office Attendant was based on the Board's letter dated 10.12.1998 and one of the conditions imposed in the said order was that the petitioner would not be eligible for the benefit of increment for CLR period of service as CLR.
4. Irrespective of the controversies that are raised, it can be seen from the counter affidavit filed that, as per Government order dated 30.9.1994 which was reiterated in WP(c).No.17456/04 3 the Government order dated 15.12.1998, employees like the petitioners on their regularization are not eligible for increment for the period they worked as CLR workers. In the counter affidavit, the Board has in clear terms stated that these Government Orders have been adopted by them. This stand of the Board is not seen disputed by filing a reply affidavit. If that be so the petitioners cannot claim increment for the CLR service period. Even otherwise their absorption in the regular service was pursuant to the Board's letter dated 10.2.1998, which also provided that the petitioners will not be entitled to claim increment for the previous CLR service.
5. For the aforesaid reasons the stand taken in Ext.P6 cannot be said to be faulty.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.17456/04 4