Kerala High Court
T.Selvarajan vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 10 March, 2020
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.22616 OF 2010(B)
PETITIONER:
T.SELVARAJAN,BETHEL BHAVAN,ATTUPURAM,
KULATHOOR,UTCHAKADA.P.O.,NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
SMT.S.SIMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM),
K.S.E.B,VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.
R1 BY SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB
R1 BY SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
R1 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.22616/2010
2
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner who is a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board is before this Court seeking to command the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner at par with that of his junior with effect from 01.08.1995 and to grant all attendant benefits to the petitioner including the revision of pension.
2. The petitioner joined service as Mazdoor and retired from the post of Sub Engineer. According to the petitioner, subsequent to the 1993 pay revision, the petitioner is drawing pay lesser than that of his junior one K. Vijayakumaran Nair.
3. The necessary service particulars in respect of the petitioner vis-a-vis K. Vijayakumaran Nair required to decide the issue are as follows:
Designation Appointment of the Appointment of K. petitioner Vijayakumaran Nair Mazdoor 14.06.1983 04.06.1983 Junior Line Assistant 01.01.1987 01.01.1987 WP(C)No.22616/2010 3 Designation Appointment of the Appointment of K. petitioner Vijayakumaran Nair Line Assistant 17.03.1994 Meter Reader 12.02.1992 31.08.1994 Overseer 11.02.1993 28.04.1995 Sub Engineer 24.01.2001 14.07.2004 Going through the above undisputed particulars, it is evident that the petitioner is senior to the said Vijayakumaran Nair in the post of Overseer as well as in the post of Sub Engineer.
According to the petitioner, consequent to the pay revision, the pay of the petitioner in the category of Overseer was fixed as `2550/- as on 01.08.1995, whereas the pay of the aforesaid Vijayakumaran Nair is fixed at a higher stage at `2800/- as on 01.08.1995. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to stepping up of pay, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that, Ext.P1 is not intended to grant stepping up of pay to the candidates like the petitioner. Going by the service particulars of the petitioner and Vijayakumaran WP(C)No.22616/2010 4 Nair, it is evident that Vijayakumaran Nair came through the channel of Line Assistant, whereas the petitioner was promoted from the post of Junior Line Assistant directly from the post of Meter Reader. Naturally, the aforesaid Vijayakumaran Nair might have received fixation benefits in the cadre of Line Assistant, enhancing his pay. Therefore, the petitioner coming through a different channel of promotion cannot claim parity with the aforesaid Vijayakumaran Nair, contends the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further points out that one of the condition stipulated under clause 3 (i) of B.O.No. 2578/96 dated 19.10.1996 for granting stepping up of pay is that the junior and senior employees should belong to the same category and should have been promoted to the same category of post. The promotion channel of the petitioner does not match with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 B.O. and therefore the petitioner cannot legally claim stepping up of pay on par with Vijayakumaran WP(C)No.22616/2010 5 Nair. The learned Standing Counsel strongly urged that there is no anomaly and the so called anomaly is not one, which have been arisen directly as a result of the pay revision granted with effect from 01.07.1993/01.08.1993.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Stepping up of pay has been recognised by the respondents to overcome anomaly of seniors drawing lesser pay than the juniors consequent to the Long Term Settlement dated 02.08.1995. The relevant paragraph of Ext.P1 Board Order dated 19.10.1996 governing claims for stepping up of pay are as follows:
"The Board having considered the above suggestions and the relevant aspects in detail is pleased to order as follows:-
1. If an employee either officer or workman draws his next increment in the revised scale, as per the provisions of the Long-term Settlement dated 02.08.1995 or the Board Order dated15.3.96, cited No.2 above, as the case may WP(C)No.22616/2010 6 be and thereby becomes eligible for higher pay than his senior whose next increment falls due at a later date, then the pay of such senior shall be refixed equal to the pay of the junior from the date on which the junior becomes entitled to the higher pay.
2. In case where a senior employee, either officer or workman, promoted to a higher post before 01.07.1993/01.08.1993, draws lesser pay in the revised scale than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or after 01.07.1993/01.08.1993, the pay of the senior employee will be stepped up to that of the junior with effect from the date on which the junior draws more pay.
3. The benefits granted as per (1) and (2) above are also subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The senior and junior employees should belong to the same category and should have been promoted to the same category of post.
(ii) The anomaly should not be due to differences in weightage.
(iii) The anomaly should have been arisen directly as a result of the pay revision granted with effect from 1.7.1993/1.8.1993.
(iv) In case there the pay of an employee is stepped up terms of (1) & (2) above, the next increment shall be granted after completing the period required to earn an increment from the date of such step up.
WP(C)No.22616/20107
(v) The fixation of pay as on 1.7.1993 or 1.8.1993, of both the senior and the junior should be got approved by the FA & CA before allowing such step-up.
(vi) The seniority should be checked with reference to approved gradation list and a detailed entry showing the serial number of both the senior and junior made in the service book.
(vii) The step-up should be allowed by an authority competent to approve fixation of pay as stipulated in cl.xiii of the Audit Circular No.1/LTS dated 17.10.1995.
4. It is further ordered that monetary benefits as per this order will accrue prospectively." Going through the aforesaid conditions, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner would fall perfectly within the aforesaid Ext.P1 B.O.
8. The petitioner was admittedly senior to Vijayakumaran Nair in the category of Overseer in as much as the petitioner was promoted as Overseer on 11.02.1993, whereas the aforedaid Vijayakumaran Nair was promoted to that post only on 28.04.1995. The petitioner was promoted on 24.01.2001 as Sub Engineer, much before the said WP(C)No.22616/2010 8 Vijayakumaran Nair was promoted as Sub Engineer on 14.07.2004. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner and the said Vijayakumaran Nair belonged to the same category and they have been promoted from the same category. The respondents have no case that the anomaly of the petitioner drawing lesser pay is not due to any preference in weightage granted to Vijayakumaran Nair. The respondents have neither a case that the petitioner's salary have been reduced consequent to any penalty imposed pursuant to any disciplinary proceedings. It is also evident that the anomaly has arisen directly as a result of the pay revision granted with effect from 01.07.1993/01.08.1993.
9. Though in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that Vijayakumaran Nair has drawn higher pay, consequent on promotion as Overseer with effect from 28.04.1995, such drawal of higher pay with effect from 28.04.1995 is consequent to the pay revision which came into effect from 01.08.1993. Therefore, it is evident that the WP(C)No.22616/2010 9 anomaly has arisen directly as a result of the pay revision granted with effect from 01.07.1993/01.08.1993. Therefore, going by the provisions contained in Ext.P1 Board Order, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to get stepping up of his pay on par with the aforesaid Vijayakumaran Nair.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refix the pay of the petitioner at par with his junior Vijayakumaran Nair. Consequential benefits including arrears of salary and revision promotional benefits and pensionery benefits, subject to clause 4 of Ext.P1 Board Order, shall be effected within a period of four months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd WP(C)No.22616/2010 10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID BOARD ORDER NO.2578/96(SC/LTS/CON-96 DATED 19/10/1996 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/12/96 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/07/2007 IN OP NO.26719/02 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23/10/2008 IN WA.NO.423/2008 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.L.A.S1/14024/02 DATED 26/3/2009 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.EB8/OP26719/02 DATED 27/04/2009 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6-01-2010 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO EB8/SE/3/2010/573 DATED 18/06/2010 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)