Kerala High Court
P.N.Sreedharan Nair vs Kerala Water Authority on 6 November, 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 22483 of 2006 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
P.N.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
S/O.P.K.NARAYANAN NAIR,
`RAMACHANDRA VILAS', KOTHALA P.O.,
PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM-686 502.
MASTER DRILLER (RETD.),
MECHANICAL SUB DIVISION, KWA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADV.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENT:
-----------
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
`JALA BHAVAN', VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA
BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, KWA
ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KWA
R BY JOSEPH JOHN(B/O)
R BY SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 22483 of 2006 (B)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.WS/E2/1005/96
DATED 6.11.1996 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT. P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PH/SD/K/E-1/311/95
DATED 6/97 OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH SUB
DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.
EXT. P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/HO/LS-3/16058/86
DATED 18.12.1996 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
EXT. P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.12.1992
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER FOR
IRRIGATION.
EXT. P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.9.99
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
EXT. P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.16857/E5/99 JB/KWA.
DATED 21.12.99 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT. P7 : A TRUE COPY OF ABOVE JUDGMENT DATED 7TH OCTOBER, 1998
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA NO.976/98 FILED BY
K.DAVID MATHEW HEAD OPERATOR, PH SECTION KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY VAIKOM AGAINST KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND
ANOTHER.
EXT. P8 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.1996 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DELIVERED IN OP NO.16392/94.
EXT. P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 4.9.2001
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OP.NO.472/00 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXT. P10 : A TRUE COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.11.01 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT. P9 COUNTER AFFIDAVIT.
EXT. P11 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.05 IN
OP.472/00 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT. P12 : A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.16857/E5/99/JB/KWA
DATED 10.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
--2--
--2--
WP(C).No. 22483 of 2006 (B)
---------------------------
EXT. P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF G.O(P)NO.21/70/PW,
DATED 23RD JANUARY 1970 AND PRELIMINARY GRADATION LIST
PAGE NOS.1 TO 5.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2006
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned Standing Counsel submits that no file has been entrusted in the case and he is therefore unable to represent the respondent.
2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12 order of the Kerala Water Authority, rejecting the petitioner's claim for continuance in service till the age of 58 years, on the strength of a Government Order as well as the findings in Exts.P7 and P11 judgments. The petitioner also claims fixation of pay, on promotion as Master Driller. The claims of the petitioner were substantially considered in an earlier round of litigation by this Court, in Ext.P11 judgment. Considering the validity of an order rejecting his claim, it was found that identically situated persons namely one K.P.Joseph W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2006 -2- and one G.Appukuttan Nair has been granted to the benefit of continuance upto the age of 58. It is also noticed that the petitioner had been appointed on the very same day. The petitioner contends that he has prior NMR service from 1963 onwards and had been appointed as Worker in the Water Authority prior to 23.07.1965. It is therefore contended that all the benefits which were made applicable to Sri.G.Appukuttan Nair were liable to be extended to the petitioner as well.
3. However, by Ext.P12 order dated 10.07.2006, the claims of the petitioner were again rejected. The petitioner had also requested for fixation of pay on grant of Time Bound Higher Grade on completion of 20 and 25 years of service. In reply, it is stated that he had enjoyed Time Bound Higher Grade fixation 3 times and was therefore, he is not entitled for fixation of pay, on completion of 25 years of service. This reason had already been found to be bad in law, by Ext.P11 judgment. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2006 -3- that the rejection of the claim to the petitioner for fixation of pay in the Time Bound Higher Grade, on completion of 20 and 25 years to service, cannot be sustained.
4. Further, the petitioner had requested for continuance in service upto the age of 58 years. It is stated that the benefit ordered in Paragraph 3(i) of Government Order dated 09.09.1986 is applicable only to NMR employees, who are absorbed into regular establishment and who continue in the same post. It is stated that the petitioner had enjoyed the benefit of promotion to the post of Head Operator and Master Driller and therefore, his claim for continuance up to the age of 58 years cannot considered. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had not been granted any cadre promotion, which took him out of the category of 'Worker', which would disentitle him for continuance in service, up to the age of 58 years. It is stated that the post of Master Driller held by the petitioner is also included in the category of Worker and since he was fully entitled to the benefits of the Government orders W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2006 -4- which were adopted by the Water Authority, he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 58 years. However, it is apparent from Ext.P12 that the contentions raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the respondents. Ext.P12 only reiterates what is stated in the earlier orders of rejection. The petitioner relies on Ext.P7 judgment of this Court where, persons similarly situated to the petitioner had been granted the benefit of continuance in service, till they attain the age of 58 years.
5. Since the case of the petitioner who was appointed in 1963 and absorbed into regular establishment in 1965 is identical to the case of the petitioner in Ext.P7 judgment, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the claim raised by the petitioner in this case is also unsustainable. No documents are produced by the respondents to substantiate the claim that the post of Master Driller is not a Grade IV post and that the holder of the said post is not a 'Worker'. No arguments are also raised on behalf of the respondents at the W.P.(C) No.22483 of 2006 -5- time of hearing.
In the above circumstances, Ext.P12 is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 58 years and also to be granted the benefits of fixation of pay, on his appointment, as Master Driller, in terms of Rule 28(A) Part I, KSR. The respondents shall pass consequential orders based on the declarations as stated above. Consequential benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANUJUDGE SIVARAMAN, vs