Kerala High Court
Manikandan K vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 9 September, 2025
2025:KER:69477
W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19199 OF 2018
PETITIONER :
MANIKANDAN K.
AGED 55 YEARS
(EMPLOYEES CODE 1049194) JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
HEAD WORKS & TUNNEL DIVISION, MUNNAR, IDUKKI
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SHRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
KUM.RIMJU P.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSEB, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAOM,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTAOM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
4 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER & PROJECT MANAGER,
PALLIVASAL, EXTENSION SCHEME, CIVIL CIRCLE, MEENCUT
P.O., CHITHRAPURAM, IDUKKI-685 565.
5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL
DIVISION, ADIMALI, KALLARKUTTY-685 562.
6 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CHITHIRAPURAM - 685 565.
2025:KER:69477
W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018
2
BY ADVS. SHRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KSEB LIMITED
SHRI.P.M.BINOY KRISHNA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69477
W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018
3
P.M. MANOJ, J
------------------
WP(C) No. 19199 of 2018
----------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The issue involved in this writ petition is regarding the regularisation of the period in which the petitioner was forced to take LWA and its consequential benefits, i.e. 25.11.2014 to 08.08.2017.
2. Originally, the petitioner joined the service of the KSEB as Office Attendant on 18.08.2000. It was a compassionate appointment as his mother fell ill during the course of her employment. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste.
3. While working as an Office Attendant at Kallarkutty in 2008, he was diagnosed with a vision problem. This issue was already reported to the 5th respondent, Executive Engineer, as per Ext.P1, and a transfer to Chithirapuram was sought, as he found it difficult to travel from Munnar to Kallarkutty daily.
4. Due to the progressive nature of the disease, the petitioner was compelled to appear before the Standing Disability 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 4 Assessment Board in the District Hospital, Idukki. Accordingly, he was assessed as having 40% disability as per Ext.P2, which was forwarded by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, as evident in Ext.P3.
5. Even thereafter, he was directed to undergo computer training for the purpose of deploying him as a cashier. Accordingly, he preferred Ext.P4 before the Executive Engineer, seeking exemption from undergoing the training. Despite his request, he was sent for training and was issued a certificate, as evident in Ext.P5.
6. It is contended by the petitioner that such a situation arose due to the disproportionate engagement of Office Attendants beyond the existing sanctioned strength, i.e. against the sanctioned strength of 402, 530 personnel were engaged as Office Attendants. To set it right, by order dated 18.10.2014, the Board was directed to fill up the vacancies of Junior Assistant/Cashier under the 20% in-service quota from among the Office Attendants, pursuant to the settlement entered into between various Trade Unions functioning within the Board.
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 5 Accordingly, by order dated 01.11.2014, sanction has been accorded for the promotion of Office Attendants to the cadre of Cashier under the 10% quota. Thereby, 120 Office Attendants became entitled to promotion as Cashier, based on their service seniority in the cadre of Office Attendants. The petitioner was one among them with Serial No.103 in Ext.R3(b).
7. In the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 12.11.2014, whereby he requested to post him as Junior Assistant in the same cadre of Cashier. However, that was declined, and he was posted as Cashier with effect from 15.11.2014. Then he was sent for training and issued with a certificate in that regard, as per Ext.P5.
8. The petitioner's vision was progressively affected by his disease after he assumed the post of Cashier. The deterioration reached a point where he was unable to continue in the position, a situation which he represented before the CEHRM. Similar cases had also been brought before the CEHRM by other individuals. Accordingly, the CEHRM forwarded a letter dated 02.02.2015, to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Board for benevolent 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 6 action. In the recommendation, the case of the petitioner was specifically mentioned. In the light of such recommendation, the Board ordered for a vigilance enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance Officer submitted his report dated 18.05.2015, recommending a medical examination.
9. In the case of the petitioner, he was suffering from low vision with 40% disability, and he sought for a category change to the post of Junior Assistant and posting at the Generation Division, Chithirapuram under the General Circle Meencut. The petitioner also pointed out that the Government is bound to save the continuance of employees who acquired various types of disability after entering service, and also that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short 'Act, 1995') for the protection of such employees.
10. Despite this, the 5th respondent issued Ext.P11 letter on 22.07.2015, directing the petitioner to report for duty as Cashier at the Marayoor Section within seven days. The letter warned that failure to comply would be treated as serious misconduct, leading 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 7 to a recommendation for disciplinary action and recovery of the excess amount paid in the post of Cashier.
11. Since this direction is in violation of the provisions of Act, 1995, the petitioner preferred a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, as evident in Ext.P12 and prayed for a category change, consequential benefits and also an action against the respondents for violation of the provisions under the Act, 1995. In the meantime, the petitioner underwent a medical examination before the appellate medical board, which assessed his disability and found that the vision disability was permanent and the degree of disability was 80%, as evident in Ext.P14. Thereafter, the State Human Rights Commission directed the respondents to retain the petitioner in the post of Cashier and to report the same to the Commission within the stipulated time, as per Ext.P15.
12. In the light of said direction, the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent to grant the petitioner category change and post him in the Meencut Civil Circle, vide order dated 15.07.2017. In the meanwhile, due to his inability to continue in the post of Cashier, he was compelled to avail leave. Since there was no eligible leave, it was treated as Leave Without Allowance (for 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 8 short 'LWA'). This was due to the arbitrary action on the part of the respondent. Section 47 of the Act, 1995, mandates;
"'Non-discrimination in government employments', no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during the service.
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability, is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other posts with the same pay scale and service benefits. Provided further that, if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or until he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability."
13. In support of the above provision, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, on assessing his disability by a competent medical board and on taking into consideration his request for a category change, he is entitled to the benefits contemplated under Section 47 of the Act 1995.
14. In support of the contention, the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the following decisions:
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 9 Kunal Singh v. Union of India and another [(2003) 4 SCC 524]. Bhagwan Dass and Another v. Punjab State Electricity Board [(2008) 1 SCC 579], Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri. V. Nazir Ahmed Shah and Others [2010 (3) SCC 603], Union of India and Others v. Fancy Babu [2016 (5) KHC 767], State of Kerala and Others v. Leesamma Joseph [2021 (9) SCC 208], Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Others [(2021) 5 SCC 370] The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah [2007 SCC 1250]. The findings in the aforesaid decisions can be summarised as follows. Persons with disabilities are entitled to equal protection under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and the mandate of Section 47 of Act 1995, now replaced by 2016 Act, is clear that an employee acquiring disability during service could not be terminated, reduced in rank, or denied promotion merely on the ground of disability. Employers are under a statutory and constitutional obligation to provide reasonable accommodation, shift such employees to an equivalent or supernumerary post and ensure a barrier-free environment that 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 10 upholds their dignity and privacy. Disability rights are not a matter of charity or largesse but enforceable entitlements flowing from the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and any discriminatory treatment - whether in continuation of service, conditions of work or promotional opportunities - will be held arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
15. In the light of such contentions, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since his request was not considered by the authorities, he was compelled to undergo leave. Initially, the period between 25.11.2014 and 13.06.2015, (201 days) was treated as eligible leave, whereas the period between 14.06.2015 and 08.08.2017 (787 days) was treated as LWA. The primary contention of the petitioner is that he was compelled to keep himself away from work due to his physical incapacity, which is covered by Section 47 of the Act, 1995. However, the respondents denied the petitioner's right. Hence, he is entitled to all the benefits between 25.11.2014 and 08.08.2017, as he continued in the post of Cashier/Junior Assistant.
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 11
16. It was only in the light of the direction given by the State Human Rights Commission that, by Ext.P16 order dated 15.07.2017, the petitioner was permitted to join the post of Junior Assistant. Then he joined the post with effect from 08.08.2017 and retired from service on 31.03.2019.
17. In order to regularise the period between 25.11.2014 and 08.08.2017, the petitioner preferred Ext.P17 representation, in which he specifically assigned reasons why he was compelled to avail medical leave, which was subsequently treated as LWA.
18. The petitioner also claimed interest at the rate of 18% on the amounts payable upon regularisation of the period between 25.11.2014 and 08.08.2017. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced the following reported decisions.
"Dr. A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College and Others [(2022) 4 SCC 627] and S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and Another [(2008) 3 SCC 44]."
The findings in those decisions are summarised as follows. Pensionary and retirement benefits are not a matter of 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 12 government discretion, but a vested right of every employee governed by service rules, and delay or denial in the disbursal will amount to a violation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Even in the absence of specific statutory rules or administrative instructions, an employee is entitled to claim such benefits in time and also to receive interest on delayed payment, as the right to pension and its timely disbursement flows from the constitutional mandate of fairness, equality and dignity.
19. In the case on hand, though the petitioner was entitled to be retained in the post despite detecting disability due to low vision, as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Act 1995, he was further entitled to a category change and a convenient posting as sought by him. Instead, he was compelled to join duty in the very same post where he expressed his incapacity to handle the work due to his physical disability, which is evident from the medical certificates produced before the authority. Threatened with disciplinary action, he was forced to take medical leave. However, due to a lack of available eligible leave, a portion of the period between 25.11.2014 and 08.08.2017, was treated as LWA. Such 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 13 a situation arose due to the arbitrary action in violation of Section 47 of the Act, 1995. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to regularisation of the said period and compensation together with interest, in light of the aforementioned decisions.
20. The petitioner has also sought compensation from the respondent for denying him the eligible rights under the provisions of Section 47 of the Act 1995. In this regard, it is brought to the attention of this Court, certain reported decisions, Sivarajan v. State of Kerala [1993 (2) KLJ 285] and S.R. Bhanrale v. Union of India and Others [(1996) 10 SCC 172], wherein courts have recognized that in appropriate cases compensation or damages may be awarded not only to reimburse actual loss but also to redress mental agony, hardship and to ensure complete justice, and such relief can be granted in addition to the original claim to uphold fairness and equity.
21. In this regard, it is further contended that "no work, no pay" principle could not be applied in this case, in the light of the reported decision, The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah [(2007) 7 SCC 689], wherein it was held 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 14 that when a person is willing to work but is illegally prevented from doing so, the authority must grant them all benefits as if they had worked. On these assertions, the petitioner prayed for salary for the period from 25.11.2014 to 08.08.2017 with interest at the rate of 18% and to regularise his service from 25.11.2014 to 08.08.2017, the period during which his absence was treated as LWA, and further, for the award of damages.
22. The respondents refuted the petitioner's claims, contending that his compassionate appointment was unrelated to his vision. They asserted that his disability was gradual and not a result of his cashier duties. They pointed out that the petitioner accepted the promotion of cashier, deposited ₹10,000/- as security, and joined duty on 15.11.2014. Thereafter, he went on medical leave just ten days later, i.e. on 25.11.2014, and remained on leave until 08.08.2017, without ever performing the job. The respondents stated that the Board did not instruct him to take leave; it was his own choice. They further argued that while working as an 'Office Attendant,' the petitioner admitted in letters Exts.P1 and P3 that he was unable to perform his duties 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 15 due to a vision problem. Despite this, he had accepted the promotion and joined his cashier post on 15.11.2014.
23. Due to the acute shortage of Cashiers, the Board called for willingness from qualified Office Attendants who wish to work as cashier trainees. There was no compulsion on anyone, including the petitioner, to express willingness. In fact, the promotion was contemplated not as a cadre promotion to the post of Cashier, but to one post as cashier trainee, thereby the monetary benefit was nominal. Only interested persons have expressed their willingness. Since the petitioner had expressed unwillingness, he was not considered to be posted as a cashier trainee. However, by Board Order No.BO (CMD) No.2696/2014 (Estt.II. 4406/2014) dated 18.10.2014, they decided to fill up 10% of the cadre strength of Junior Assistant/Cashier by promoting eligible and qualified Office Attendants based on their seniority in the cadre of Office Attendant and to post as Cashiers on a regular basis. The said order is produced as Ext.R3(a). Clause 5 of the order stipulates, "all the promotees may invariably 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 16 be posted as Cashiers and under no circumstances promotees shall be posted as Junior Assistant".
24. Accordingly, 120 Office Attendants were promoted as Cashiers based on their service seniority, as per Ext.R3(b) dated 01.11.2014. Clause 16 of the said order stipulates, "if any promotee fails to report for duty in the promoted post within 15 days from the date of this order, he/she will be deemed to have not accepted the promotion and next eligible person will be considered for promotion". Similarly, Clause 17 of the proceedings directed the Deputy Chief Engineer to arrange induction-level training in the respective training centres before engaging them in the promotional posts as Cashiers. Petitioner was serial No. 103.
25. In the light of said proceedings and on the basis of the submission by the petitioner dated 14.11.2014, he was relieved from the post of Office Attendant (Higher Grade) to join the post of Cashier as evident in Ext.R3(c). He also furnished a bond dated 17.11.2014, whereby he expressed his willingness to work as Cashier. He joined the post with effect from 15.11.2014. Then 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 17 only the training programme was arranged for the promotees between 18.11.2014 to 22.11.2014. After the successful completion of training, he reported for duty as Cashier at Electrical Section, Marayur on 23.11.2014.
26. The respondents further contended that, based on the aforementioned points, the petitioner's decision to accept the promoted post was his own choice. By accepting the promotion, he denied the opportunity to the next eligible candidate, thereby preventing the Board from utilizing the service of another qualified individual. This was particularly significant as Board Order Ext.R3(a) highlights the urgent need for promotions due to an acute shortage of cashiers. This is the reason why his request for posting him as a Junior Assistant was not considered. Instead, the petitioner accepted the promotion, furnished an undertaking and complied with Clause 11 of the promotion order by remitting ₹10,000/- as security deposit. Had he declined the promotion, the next eligible person would have been promoted to the post, which carries a higher scale of pay than the Office Attendant Grade I.
27. The training programme undergone by the petitioner was sufficient to meet the requirements of the post of Cashier.
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 18 The petitioner is well aware that the loss of vision caused to him is progressive in nature. Initially, as evident in Ext.P5, it was 40%. Later, after six months, it was diagnosed as 75% as per Ext.P8. In the next year, the disability certificate of Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram dated 21.10.2016 certifies 80%. This is to show that the condition was a gradual phenomenon. Though the petitioner joined the post, he did not attend the duty as cashier from 25.11.2014, as he was on leave. During the leave period, his vision reduced to a considerable extent. It is in no way related to the training programme or the usage of a computer.
28. Other promoted employees submitted similar requests, which were investigated by the Chief Vigilance Officer. The investigator recommended a medical examination. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to get a medical certificate from the Medical Board, since his vision problems would affect his ability to work as both a Cashier and a Junior Assistant. The 5 th respondent's only reason for directing the petitioner to join as a cashier, via Ext.P11, was to ensure the office could run smoothly amidst a cashier shortage.
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 19
29. The petitioner appealed to the State Human Rights Commission, requesting a Junior Assistant position and the benefits associated with it for his leave period. Based on humanitarian considerations and in compliance with the commission's order, he was posted as a Junior Assistant at the Civil Circle, Meencut by an order dated 01.08.2017, and he joined the post on 18.08.2017.
30. The petitioner's contention that he was out of service from 05.11.2014 to 08.08.2017 is not correct, as he was in the service of the Board as Office Attendant from 05.11.2014 to 14.11.2014 and cashier from 15.11.2014 to 08.08.2017. He was on eligible leave from 25.11.2014 to 13.06.2015 (201 days). However, he was on LWA between 14.06.2015 and 08.08.2017 (787 days). He was given pay and allowances admissible during the eligible period from 25.11.2014 to 13.06.2015. However, he is not entitled to any pay and allowances from 14.06.2015 to 08.08.2017. Nevertheless, this period was still counted for his seniority, promotion, increment, higher grade, pension, and accumulation of Half Pay Leave. In that regard, the specific 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 20 orders are produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R3(i) to Ext.R3(o). The respondents contended that the petitioner was never discriminated in his service or promotion due to his disability. By regularizing his leave period, he is not entitled to any more pay and allowances, as he has already been granted the benefit of considering his entire service period, with the exception of the salary for the 787 days of leave without allowances (LWA). Therefore, they sought to dismiss the writ petition with costs. They also argued that this position is supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. B.M. Jha [2007 KHC 4289], which held that salary arrears cannot be granted on the principle of "no work, no pay"
in cases of retrospective promotion.
31. I have heard Sri.T.V. Ajayakumar, the counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.K. Thankappan, the Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.
32. The sole question to be decided in this case, after assessing the entire factual matrix, is whether the petitioner is entitled to the wages for the period between 25.11.2014 and 08.08.2017.
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 21
33. Going by the averments, it appears that the petitioner joined the service in the year 2000 on compassionate grounds as Office Attendant. In the year 2008, he was diagnosed with vision impairment of 40%. Pointing out this condition, the petitioner had approached the Board authorities seeking a convenient posting at Chithirapuram. Thereafter, the issue of promotion arose due to the acute shortage of Cashiers in the Board. To address a shortage of cashiers, a settlement was reached between the Trade Unions and the Board, whereby it was decided that eligible Office Attendants could apply to become Cashier trainees. At the time, there were 513 Office Attendants against a sanctioned strength of 402, and 40 dependent applications for Office Attendants positions under compassionate appointments were pending. Out of 289 Office Attendants eligible for transfer or appointment under the 20% quota, 173 were already working as trainees or provisional cashiers. To meet the demand, a decision was taken to fill 10% of the Junior Assistant/Cashier cadre, i.e., a total of 120 vacancies -- by promoting eligible Office Attendants on a regular basis, based on their seniority.
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 22 Consequently, the CEHRM issued proceedings on 01.11.2014, in which the petitioner was included as number 103 on the list.
34. As previously mentioned, Section 47 of the Act 1995, provides protection to an employee who acquires a disability during their service. The Act stipulates that if an employee is no longer suitable for their current position, they can be shifted to another post with the same pay scale and service benefits. If such an adjustment is not possible, the employee may be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable position becomes available or they reach the age of superannuation, whichever comes first. The section further stipulates that no person shall be denied a promotion merely because of a disability.
35. In the case in hand, the petitioner was not denied promotion since even after identifying his 40% vision disability, he was considered for promotion. However, he was denied a convenient posting as contemplated under Section 47(1) of the Act, 1995.
36. Going by the words used in Ext.P11, the Executive Engineer had intimated to the petitioner that failure to join duty 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 23 within 7 days would be treated as serious misconduct, attracting disciplinary action and that the excess payment already availed by him in the post of Cashier would be recovered. This directive was issued despite the petitioner's request for a more suitable posting as a Junior Assistant due to his visual disability. It is also alleged that the petitioner obtained his promotion by concealing his 40% vision disability. In fact, the petitioner had already approached authorities to request a posting as an Office Attendant at Chithirapuram, based on the Ext.P2 certificate. The petitioner contends, he was forced to take leave because he found it difficult to perform the duties of a cashier and was not provided with a suitable posting as per Section 47 of the Act, 1995.
37. Moreover, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he had not applied for any LWA, it shall be construed that, in the absence of being granted a convenient posting, he was compelled to remain on leave even without having eligible leave to his credit. In fact, the petitioner was on leave from 25.11.2014 to 08.08.2017. However, the period between the 25.11.2014 to 13.06.2015, i.e. 201 days, was treated as eligible leave, and the 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 24 consequential benefit, including salary, was disbursed to the pe- titioner. What remains is the salary between 14.06.2015 and 08.08.2017. The document produced by Standing Counsel bear- ing No.EBPS 12/1219/2019 dated 22.11.2024, which is a com- munication from the Accounts Officer (Pension Sanction) of the Board to the office of the Standing Counsel, shows that the peti- tioner retired from service as Senior Assistant, Head Works and Tunnel Division Pallivasal extension Scheme, Munnar on 31.03.2019. His pensionary benefits were sanctioned on 22.10.2020 by taking his qualifying service as 19 years and his pensionary benefits were sanctioned on 22.11.2020. The details of the Pension Payment Order as per 2013 Pay Revision by PPO No.44955 are as follows :
"1. Pension @Rs.14,399/-+ DR (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred nd Ninety Nine only) with effect from 01.04.2019.
2. Commutation Rs.7,67,099/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand and Ninety Nine only)
3. Pension after commutation - Rs.8,640/- + DR (Rupees Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Forty only)
4. Gratuity - Rs.7,27,956/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Seven thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Six only)
5. Family Pension Rs.14,399/- + DR (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Nine only)"
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 25 Later, as per Pay Revision 2018, the pensionary claims revised and sanctioned on 06.01.2022 and the revised rates are as follows :
"1. Pension @ Rs.20,907/- + DR (Rupees Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred and Seven only) with effect from 01.04.2019.
2. Pension after commutation - Rs.15,148/- + DR (Rupees Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only)
3. Gratuity - Rs.8,30,665/- (Eight Lakhs Thirty Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Five only)"
From the above, it is discernible that the petitioner was not denied promotional opportunities and other benefits. However, only due to compelling reasons, in connection with his disability, the petitioner remained absent from the work between 25.11.2014 to 08.08.2017 out of which period between 25.11.2014 to 13.06.2014 was treated as eligible leave, but the 787days for the period between 14.06.2015 and 08.08.2017 was treated as LWA disregarding his right to be accommodated against convenient post as requested by him under Section 47 of the Act, 1995. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that he is entitled to the salary for the 787 days between 14.06.2015 and 08.08.2017, taking a lenient view in the light of Kunal Singh, 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 26 Bagavan Das and another, Syed Basheer, State of Kerala and Others, Vikas Kumar supra. However, I am not inclined to grant interest on the said amount as sought by the petitioner, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already been given all the benefits consequent to his 19 years of complete service, including the benefit of 2018 pay revision.
In the said lines, the plea for compensation is also rejected. In the result, the respondent Board is directed to pay the basic pay for the 787 days between 14.06.2015 and 08.08.2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE ttb 2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 27 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19199/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/06/2008 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2- THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE STANDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P3- THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/06/2009 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4- THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/04/2012 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5- THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON COMPLETION OF COMPUTER TRAINEE.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER AND POSTING OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15/11/2014.
EXHIBIT P7- THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02/02/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 10/02/2015.
EXHIBIT P9- THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18/05/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE VIGILANCE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P10- THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/01/2015 ADDRESSED TO CHIEF ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P11- THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/07/2015 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P12- THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25/08/2015 FILED BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P13- THE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 18/01/2016 BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P14- THE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 21/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE MEDICAL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P15- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/04/2017 ISSUED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P16- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/07/2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/02/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
2025:KER:69477 W.P.(C) No.19199 of 2018 28 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.B.O.(CMD) No.2696/2014 (ESTT.ii 4406/2014) DATED 18.10.14.
EXHIBIT R3(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.EB3/OA-CASHIER/ PROMOTION/16335/2014 DATED 01.11.2014.
EXHIBIT R3(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 14.11.2014 OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R3(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD DATED 17.11.2014. EXHIBIT R3(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 17.11.2014 EXHIBIT R3(F) : TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED SYLLABUS FOR THE INDUCTION LEVEL TRAINING FOR THE NEWLY RECRUITED CASHIERS EXHIBIT R3(G) : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO.EB3/CASHIER/Gnl/18115/2014 DATED 02.02.2015 SUBMITTED THE CMD, KSEBL. EXHIBIT R3(H) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2017. EXHIBIT R3(I) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.B3/CASHIER/LWA/953/2016 DATED 30.01.2016.
EXHIBIT R3(J) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.EB3/CASHIER/LWA/4195/2016 DATED 29.04.2016.
EXHIBIT R3(K) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.EB3/CASHIER/LWA/9840/2016 DATED 08.09.2016.
EXHIBIT R3(L) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.EB3/CASHIER/LWA/9840/2016 DATED 04.11.2016.
EXHIBIT R3(M) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.EB3/CASHIER/LWA/9840/2016 DATED 23.02.2017.
EXHIBIT R3(N) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.EB3/CASHIER/LWA/9840/2016 DATED 31.05.2017.
EXHIBIT R3(O) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.EB3/CASHIER/LWA/9840/2016 DATED 12.12.2017.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE