Kerala High Court
John T.Sam vs High Court Of Kerala on 23 March, 2020
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1942
WP(C).No.23797 OF 2019(R)
PETITIONER:
JOHN T.SAM,
AGED 52 YEARS
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI 682 031
RESIDING AT 43/2432 A, PALATHRA,
S.R.M ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
PIN 682 018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
KOCHI 682 031.
2 THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031.
ADDL.3 N.V.NEELAKANDHAN,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI 682 031.
ADDL.4 K.JYOTHI,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI 682 031.
ADDL.5 R.ALFRED,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI 682 031.
W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 2
ADDL.6 D.SURESH KUMAR,
DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI 682 031.
(ADDL.R3 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
23.03.2020 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2020)
R1-2, SC, BY SR.ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI
R1-R2 SC, BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANISON
R3-R6 BY ADV. P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10-03-2020, THE COURT ON 23-03-2020 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 3
P.V.ASHA, J.
--------------------------
W.P(C) No.23797 of 2019-R
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2020
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for promotion as Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. He is also aggrieved by the denial of monetary benefits based on the notional promotion granted to him to the posts of Section Officer/Court Officer (Higher Grade) and Court Fee Examiner (re-designated as Filing Scrutiny Officer)
2. While the petitioner was working as a Section Officer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, by issuing a memo of charges in 2008 with respect to purchase of a property and it culminated in Ext.P1 order dated 26.06.2014 awarding him a punishment of compulsory retirement. In appeal, the penalty was modified as barring of one increment temporarily for a period of two years and he was reinstated as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.01.2015. Thereafter, as per Ext.P4 order dated 23.07.2015 he was promoted to the category of Section Officer (HG)/Court Officer (HG) with effect from 01.06.2015. Pointing out the promotions granted to several of his juniors to the categories of Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer (HG) and to that of Court Fee Examiner during the W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 4 pendency of the disciplinary proceedings i.e from 11.08.2008 to 25.06.2014, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal dated 18.10.2015. He pointed out that his immediate junior was granted promotion against vacancy of Court Officer(HG)/Section Officer(HG) which arose on 10.03.2011, as Court Fee Examiner against a vacancy which arose on 20.11.2013. In the appeal he requested to set aside the regularisation of promotions granted to his juniors and to grant him promotion to that post with retrospective effect from 12.04.2011 with all consequential benefits. In Ext.P7 order dated 24.07.2018 the appeal committee directed that the petitioner be granted promotion as Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) as also to the post of Court Fee Examiner with effect from the dates on which his immediate junior Sri A.S.Manoharan was promoted. It was also ordered that he shall be given the pay and allowances applicable to those posts from the respective dates. However, it was ordered that the next higher post, i.e. Assistant Registrar, being a selection post, he would be entitled to be considered only after 25.06.2019. The appeal committee found that the petitioner was excluded from consideration for promotion when his juniors were considered and promoted. Seeing that he was denied promotion solely on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, applying the principles contained in Note (ii) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR) the appeal committee held that when the post of Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) is not a selection post, the principles contained in those provisions could not have been applied to deny him promotion. It was found that the provisions of KS&SSR W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 5 are not adopted in the High Court Service Rules and therefore if at all the principles contained in KS&SSR were to be the guiding factors, the principles contained in Rule 28(b)(ii) should have been applied and hence there would not have been any impediment in granting promotion to the petitioner as Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG). It was found that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted accordingly as Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) with effect from 10.3.2011 with consequential monetary benefits. Regarding the promotion as Court Fee Examiner it was found that his immediate junior was promoted on 18.11.2013. Seeing that the post of Court Fee Examiner was not treated as a selection post till 11.08.2014 and as his junior was promoted on 11.08.2013, based on seniority alone, it was found that he was entitled to be promoted as Court Fee Examiner from 18.11.2013, the date on which his junior was promoted. However, while considering his claim for promotion as Assistant Registrar, it was found that it is a selection post. It was found that the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to him on 25.06.2014, was modified as barring of increment for two years on 23.01.2015; in view of the circular issued by the High Court on 14.08.2014, fixing the criteria for effecting promotion to selection posts in Rule 20(1)(a) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules that officers with adverse remarks in the ACR of last 5 years under consideration and those who are awarded punishment during that period are not fit for promotion, it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to further promotions for a period of 5 years from 25.06.2014. It was further found that in the light of the principles contained in Rule 34(b) of W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 6 KS&SSR, the promotions granted to his juniors overlooking the claim of the petitioner before orders were passed in his apppeal against the penalty of compulsory retirement, should have been subject to the outcome of his appeal. Hence the appeal committee directed to issue orders promoting the petitioner to the post of Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) as well as Court Fee Examiner with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior Sri. A.S Manoharan and to give him pay and allowances applicable to the posts with effect from such dates. It is stated that the Registry had sought a clarification in the matter in respect of implementation of Ext.P7 order, in the light of Rules 23(a) and 23(d) of Part I of the KSR. Stating that those rules do not have any application in the case of the petitioner as it was found that he was kept away from the higher posts at a time when his juniors were permitted to work in the said posts, it was directed that the pay and allowances applicable to the promotion posts shall be fixed in tune with Ext.P7 order.
3. Thereafter, as per Ext.P9 order dated 28.03.2019 the petitioner was appointed as Section Officer (HG)/Court Officer (HG) w.e.f 10.03.2011 and as Court Fee Examiner w.e.f 20.11.2013. However, arrears of pay was not given as ordered in Ext.P7. Thereupon, he submitted Ext.P11 appeal before the appeal committee for a direction to grant him promotion as SO(HG)/CO(HG) and as Filing Scrutiny Officer with all consequential benefits from the date of promotion of his juniors and for a declaration that he was entitled to promotion as Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar w.e.f 01.06.2015, stating that the penalty imposed W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 7 on him ceased to exist on that day. As per Ext.P12 order dated 09.04.2019, the petitioner was informed that the appeal committee directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice stating that it did not have the power to review and that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice declined his request in view of clause vi of the guidelines dated 16.05.2018 regarding the criteria and procedure to effect promotion to selection posts enumerated under Rule 20(1)(a) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007.
4. As the petitioner was not granted arrears of pay while granting him promotion as Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) from 10.03.2011 and as Filing Scrutiny Officer from 20.11.2013, he had submitted Ext.P15 review petition before the Honourable the Chief Justice against Ext.P9 order seeking directions for payment of monetary benefits. But as per Ext.P16 order dated 25.09.2019 the petitioner was informed that it was rejected on the ground that he had not discharged his duties in those posts from the date of the notional promotion and the principle of `no work no pay' was applicable in his case. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was granted promotion as Assistant Registrar as per Ext.P14 order on 05.07.2019.
5. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for imposition of major penalty proceedings and in the enquiry report submitted on 18.5.2010 he was found guilty of the charges relating to violation of Rules 24, 26 and 31 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960. A punishment of compulsory retirement was W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 8 awarded and it was modified as a minor penalty in appeal. As per Rule 20(1)(b) of the High Court Service Rules, promotion to the post of Section Officer (HG)/Court Officer (HG) shall be made based on seniority subject to fitness and fitness is to be decided by the Honourable Chief Justice, who is the Head of the Department, as per the Note below Rule 37 of the Rules. It is stated that as per Rule 37 of the Rules, the Hon'ble Chief Justice is the competent authority to decide all matters relating to service conditions of the petitioner. It is stated that there is practical difficulty in making payment to the petitioner from 10.03.2011 to 20.11.2013 the pay admissible to Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) and from 20.11.2013 to 05.07.2019 the pay attached to the Court Fee Examiner because the vacancy was already filled up by appointing Mr. A.S.Manoharan, the immediate junior of the petitioner, who had worked and drawn salary. It is stated that on promotion of Sri. Manoharan another person was promoted to that vacancy and on retirement of Manoharan on 31.10.2016, another junior was promoted. It is stated that the petitioner has not discharged the duties attached to those promotion posts and hence he is not entitled to the pay and allowances towards his notional promotion, applying the principle of `no work no pay' in the light of various judgments of the Apex Court. It is stated that the memo of charges was issued to the petitioner on 11.8.2008; enquiry report was submitted on 18.5.2010; punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded on 26.6.2014; Ext.P2 order modifying it as barring of increments for 2 years was issued on 29.01.2015; he was out of service from 26.06.2014 to 29.01.2015 on account of the penalty of compulsory retirement and W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 9 he was undergoing punishment for the period from 26.06.2014 to 26.06.2016. It is stated that he was not liable to be promoted to a selection post during the period when he was undergoing disciplinary action or when he was undergoing punishment. According to the respondents, even if clause (vi) of Ext.P13 circular is set aside, as the ACR of the officer for the preceding five years from the date from which he is claiming promotion will have to be taken, he can aspire for promotion only after 29.06.2019; the petitioner was granted promotion as Assistant Registrar on 05.07.2019 after considering all these aspects. It is stated that under the proviso to Article 229, the rules made under Article 229(2) relating to salaries, allowances, leave, pension etc. require the approval of the Governor of the State and hence it is for the State Government to take a decision on the claim for arrears of pay. According to the respondents, in the absence of State Government as a party to this Writ Petition, the claim for arrears of salary is not liable to be adjudicated.
6. Some of the Deputy Registrars have got impleaded as per order in I.A.No.2/2020. They have filed a counter affidavit. Their contention is that they were already granted promotion to the category of Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer (HG), Court Fee Examiners, Assistant Registrars and thereafter as Deputy Registrars, when the petitioner was undergoing disciplinary proceedings/punishments. According to them, they were promoted to these posts after completing probation in each of the posts and after being found meritorius in the process of selection. According to them, mere seniority will not make the W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 10 petitioner eligible for promotion to selection posts; the petitioner would become eligible for promotion as Assistant Registrar only if he actually discharged the duties attached to the post and successfully completes his probation in the feeder category of Court Fee Examiner; he will be eligible to be considered for promotion as Deputy Registrar only on declaration of his probation in the post of Assistant Registrar. It is pointed out that the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar which is a selection post is governed by Rule 20 (2)(b) and seniority will be considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.
7. Heard Sri. P.Ravindran, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. V.P.Seemanthini, the learned Senior Counsel for the High Court and Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Senior Counsel for additional respondents 3 to 6.
8. The contention of the petitioner against the denial of monetary benefits is that in the absence of any rules, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice does not have any power to interfere with Ext.P7 order passed by the appeal committee which found that he was entitled to monetary benefits from the date of promotion of his juniors as Section Officer (HG)/Court Officer (HG). It is pointed out that Clause (vi) of Ext.P13 circular, based on which the petitioner was found ineligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was set aside by this Court in the judgment in Pradeep.B v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. [ILR 2020 (1) Kerala 109]. In the light of the said judgment, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that once the only impediment viz. clause (vi) of Ext.P13 circular in considering him for promotion ceased to exist, he is entitled W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 11 to be considered for promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. It is pointed out that even the punishment of barring of increment for one year was over on 01.06.2015 and therefore he was entitled for promotion once the period of punishment was over.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the High Court relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India: [AIR 1990 SC 166] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siraj Uddin Khan [(2019) 7 SCC 564] argued that the petitioner, who has not worked in the posts to which he was granted notional promotion, is not entitled to any monetary benefits especially when there would be double payment.
10. The learned Counsel for the additional respondents relying on the judgments in Mohanan v. State of Kerala: 2000(2) KLT 798 and the Division Bench judgment in Mohanan V Joshwa: 2006(3) KLT 301 argued that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered or granted promotion from a date earlier to their promotion as Assistant Registrar or Deputy Registrar and promotions granted to the additional respondents are not liable to be disturbed.
11. Having heard the contentions on either side it is seen that the claim of the petitioner for monetary benefits was allowed in Ext.P7 order by the appeal committee which found him eligible for promotion as Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) with effect from 10.03.2011 and as Court Fee Examiner with effect from 20.11.2013, along with all monetary benefits. The clarification sought by the Registry is seen rejected in Ext.P8 order. While issuing Ext.P9 order granting him W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 12 notional promotion to those posts and fixing his seniority above Sri Manoharan in the seniority list of those categories, nothing was stated regarding the monetory benefits. In Ext.P16 order his review petition claiming monetary benefits was rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Justice stating that the petitioner has not discharged the duties attached to the posts of Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) or Filing Scrutiny Officer and that the principle of `no work no pay' is squarely applicable. According to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Chief Justice is not competent to vary the orders of appeal committee.
12. In order to examine whether the order passed by the appeal committee can be modified by the Hon'ble Chief Justice it is necessary to have a look at Part IV of the Kerala High Court Service Rules which deals with appeal and review. Rule 27 provides for the circumstances under which an aggrieved party can file appeal. Rule 28 provides that when an order appealed is passed by the Chief Justice appeal shall be to a bench of three judges nominated by the Chief Justice. Rule 32 empowers the Chief Justice to review his own orders or revise the orders passed by the Registrar General. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.Ravindran, there is no provision enabling the Chief Justice to vary the orders passed by the appeal committee. The contention that the Chief Justice being the head of the Department under Rule 37 of the Rules is the authority to decide on the pay and allowances of the employees in the High Court and therefore can decide the admissibility of monetary benefits consequent to notional promotion also, cannot also be correct, in a case where appeal committee has passed orders. W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 13
13. Though it is true that persons who actually worked in the post at the relevant time have drawn salary and that there would be double payment, the appeal committee, applying the principle of Rule 34 of the KS&SSR, found that the promotions granted overlooking the petitioner were not liable to be regularised before orders were passed on his appeal and the petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits from the date on which he was found entitled to promotion. While considering the applicability of Rule 28 of KS&SSR, the appeal committee has taken note of the fact that the KS&SSR is not adopted and the provisions therein are not applicable. However, the finding relating to arrears of pay is seen rendered applying the principles in Rule 34 of KS&SSR. As rightly pointed out by Smt. V.P.Seemanthini, it is relevant to have a look at the relevant provisions of Rule 37 of the Kerala High Court Service Rules as published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary, which reads as follows:
"37. Pay, allowances, leave salary, pension and other conditions of service:-
xxxx (2) Subject to these Rules, the Kerala Service Rules, the Government Servants Conduct Rules, the General Provident Fund (Kerala) Rules and the rules regulating the pay of the services for the time being in force applicable to the officers under the rule making power of the Governor or Government of Kerala, as the case may be, shall govern the members of the Service in the matter of their pay, allowances, leave, leave salary, pension and other conditions of service:
Provided that except with regard to salaries, allowances, leave and pension, the Chief Justice shall exercise the powers vested in the Governor or the Government under any of the aforesaid rules:
Provided further that the Chief Justice shall specifically issue orders sanctioning the grant of the scales of pay and allowances to the members of the Service in accordance with those sanctioned by the Government. Note:-- The Chief Justice is the Head of the Department as regards the member of the service."W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 14
Therefore, it is evident that Rule 37 does not adopt the provisions in KS&SSR and adopts only Kerala Service Rules (KSR), Provident Fund (Kerala) Rules and the rules regulating the pay of the services for the time being in force applicable to officers under the Government. The Division Bench of this Court has in the judgment in Pradeep B v. High Court of Kerala : ILR 2020(1) Ker 109 has also held that KS&SSR is not applicable to the officers and employees of the High Court. However, the appeal committee has in Ext.P7 order directed payment of monetary benefits with effect from the date from which the petitioner is granted promotion. When the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the orders rejecting the benefits granted in Ext.P7 order and seeking directions to the respondents to grant those benefits, an interference with those findings of the appeal committee is not called for in a Writ Petition at the instance of the beneficiary of those findings. Nobody has challenged Ext.P7 order. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are bound to disburse the monetary benefits arising out of his notional promotion. It cannot be denied applying the principle of `no work no pay' also as long as Ext.P7 stands. Therefore, the judgments of the Apex Court in Palaru Ramakrishnaiah's case (supra) or Sirajudhin's case (supra) would not help the respondents.
14. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court that the Government is a necessary party in this case or that sanction of the Government is required for disbursing monetary benefits to the petitioner, in the light of the Proviso to Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 15 India. Proviso to Article 229(2) is applicable only for sanctioning the scale of pay/revision of pay in respect of various posts in the High Court. Therefore, Ext.P16 order denying monetary benefits to the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
15. The next question is regrading the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Registrar. Though the petitioner has claimed that his punishment was over by 01.06.2015 and is entiled to promotion as Assistant Registrar with effect from that date, it is seen that punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded on 26.6.2014; that was modified as per Ext.P2 order as barring of one increment for 2 years on 29.01.2015 and therefore the period of punishment would have been over only on 26.06.2016 and not on 01.06.2015 as claimed by the petitioner. On this claim the appeal committee, in Ext.P7 order, taking note of the fact that the post of Assistant Registrar is a selection post and that his juniors got promotion to that post on being qualified in the process of selection conducted in accordance with the criteria, found that the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for promotion for a period of 5 years from 25.06.2014, the date on which punishment was awarded. In Ext.P12 order, his request for promotion as Assistant Registrar from 01.06.2015 was rejected, in view of Clause vi of the guidelines dated 16.05.2018 regarding criteria and procedure relating to promotion to selection posts enumerated under Section 20(1)(a) of the Rules - Circular Ext P13. Clause
(iv) of the guidelines is set aside by the Division Bench in the judgment in Pradeep's case (supra). However, other provisions in the circular would be applicable.
W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 16
16. The post of Assistant Registrar is a selection post, as provided in Rule 20, relevant portion of which reads as follows:.
"20. Promotion and appointment by transfer:--(1) (a) The following categories shall be treated as selection categories for promotion which shall be made on ground of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal:
1. xxx xxx xxx
7. Joint Registrar
8. Deputy Registrar
9. Assistant Registrar
10. Filing Scrutiny Officer xxx
18. xxxxx
(b) In all other cases promotion shall be based on senirity cum fitness.
(2) (a) one fifth of the posts of Assistant Registrars shall be filled up by promotion of graduates (other than law graduates) working in the category of Section Officer(Higher Grade)/Court Officer (Higher Grade) subject to the condition that
(i) they must have completed completed 50 years of age
(ii) they must be willing to be appointed as Assistant Registrar
(iii) their capacity and competence to hold the post must be certified by a committee consisting of Registrar General, Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) and Registrar (Judicial);
(iv) if a qualified non-law graduate is not available for promotion on the date of occurrence of vacancy, it shall be filled up by eligible law graduate. Provided that an eligible law graduate shall not be superseded by a non-law graduate by the application of this clause.
Explanation: Seniority in the category of Section Officer (Higher Grade)/Court Officer(Higher Grade) shall be a critera for being considered for promotion, as prescribed in Annexure I of the Rules, to the category of Assistant Registrars." The qualification and method of appointment to various posts are given in the Annexure. As per the Annexure the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar, which is classified as category 5 in Subdivision 2, is as follows:
"Promotion of Section Officer (Higher grade)/Court Officer(Higher W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 17 Grade) , promotion under Rule 20(2)(a), deputation or direct recruitment.
Section Officer (Higher grade)/Court Officer(Higher Grade) who are appointed as Filing Scrutiny Officer, by transfer will also be considered for promotion in accordance with their seniority in the category of Section Officer (Higher grade)/Court Officer(Higher Grade)."
As per Rule 2(1) appointment by promotion means appointment of an approved probationer to a higher post in the direct line of promotion; appointment by transfer of a member of service from a category in a lower division to a higher division or from a lower scale to higher scale. Rule 13 provides for the period of probation for those appointed by various methods of appointment. For those appointed by promotion or by transfer it is for one year on duty within a continuous period of two years and for those appointed to selection categories enumerated under Rule 20(1)(a) by promotion is six months on duty within a continuous period of one year.
17. As pointed out by Sri. P. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Registrar from 01.06.2015 was rejected relying on clause vi of the schedule appended to the circular Ext.P13, which is annulled by the Division Bench in the judgment in Pradeep.B 's case (supra). As per Clause (vi), those with adverse remarks in ACR for 5 years and sufferred punishment during that period were excluded from consideration. However, as pointed out by the respondents even in the absence of clause (vi) of the circular, the case of the petitioner can be considered for promotion only in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 20(1)(b) and other provisions in the circular, according to which, merit and ability has to be W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 18 adjudged on the basis of ACR for the last five years.
18. As the only reason stated for denying promotion was the provisions contained in clause vi of the circular, which stands set aside, I am not going into the question of eligibility of the petitioner for consideration of promotion or for promotion and therefore I am not examining the applicability of the judgments in Mohd. Faizal K.A. v. D. Sali : (2017) 16 SCC 394, the judgments of this court in Mohanan v. State of Kerala: 2000(2) KLT 798 or in Mohanan v. Joshwa:
2006(3) KLT 301.
19. In the result, the Writ Petition is ordered as follows:
(i) There shall be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that monetary benefits ordered to the petitioner in Ext.P7 decision of the appeal committee are disbursed to him within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
(ii) The orders Exts.P12 and P16 to the extent it rejected the request of the petitioner based on Clause (vi) of Ext.P12 circular and denied monetary benefits based on notional promotion shall stand set aside.
(iii) The 1st respondent shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Registrar from the date of promotion of his immediate junior afresh in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 19
(iv) The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 20 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A1-56888/07/A6
DATED 26-06-2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A1-
56888/07/A6 DATED 29-01-2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE APPEAL
COMMITTEE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT DATED 23-01-2015.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A5-
61894/2015 DATED 23-07-2015.
EXHIBIT P5 LETTER NO. GE15/D/AJ-J 108/10737 OF THE
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTAT GENERAL
(A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
20-01-2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE
DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL EXCEPT ANNEXURES FILED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18-10-2015.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL
APPEAL COMMITTEE ORDER NO A5-107497/2015
DATED 24-07-18.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A5-107497/15
DATED 03-01-19.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A5-
107497/2015 DATED 28/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO.
A5-807/2016 DATED 18-03-2016.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE APPEAL
COMMITTEE DATED 13-12-2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO.
A5-107497/2015 DATED 09-04-2019.
W.P(c).No.23797/2019-R 21
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
GUIDELINES NO. PIO 420/2015 DATED
25-07-2015.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A5/44403/2018(2)
DATED 5-7-2019.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW DATED
24.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS A5-
107497/2015(1) DATED 25.09.2019.