Kerala High Court
Kerala State Backward Classes ... vs Sreedevi V.R on 23 September, 2014
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/16TH POUSHA, 1938
WA.No. 292 of 2015 IN WP(C).30735/2009
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)No.30735/2009 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
23-09-2014
APPELLANT/2nd RESPONDENT:
---------------------------
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RESIDING AT T.C. 27/588, 'SENTANEL', VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.
BY ADVS.SRI.JAYAPRADEEP. V, SC, KSBCDC
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KSBCDC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1st RESPONDENT :
----------------------------------------
1. SREEDEVI V.R.,
STENO TYPIST,
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
DISTRICT OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM.
2. NARMADA N.K.,
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
DISTRICT OFFICE, KANNUR.
3. SUDHA.V.
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE.
4. BINDUMOLE T.,
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.
5. ANITHA.C.,
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD.
WA.No. 292 of 2015 IN WP(C).30735/2009
6. SOFIYA,
STENO TYPIST,
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
DISTRICT OFFICE,
ALAPPUZHA.
7. SAJUMON J.,
KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
8. BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, REG.No.01-02 OF 2007,
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
9. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SC/ST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1-R8 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
R9 - BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER (SC/ST) SRI.M.K.ROBIN RAJ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, CJ. & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.292 of 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2017
JUDGMENT
Mohan M.Shantanagoudar, CJ.
Respondents 1 to 7/writ petitioners were appointed on regular basis in the cadre of 'Steno-Typist' in the appellant/Corporation. As per Ext.P2 Special Rules governing the service conditions of the employees of the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation, the method of appointment to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director includes promotion from the category of Steno-Typist.
2. The said post can also be filled up by direct recruitment or by deputation from State Government service. This case is concerned with promotion from the category of Steno-Typist.
Ext.P4 is the Scheme for time bound higher grade promotion. The first higher grade promotion will be on completion of 8 years of service in the entry post. The second higher grade promotion will be on completion of 16 years of service in the entry post. It is not in dispute that the post of Steno-Typist is an entry level post. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 7 have completed 8 years of service (As on this date they have been W.A.No.292/2015 2 completed 16 years of service). Despite the same, they were not given the first higher grade promotion in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director. The said request was declined stating that Steno-Typist cannot have any legitimate claim, as a matter of right, for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director and it is not a normal promotion post in the normal hierarchy of promotion posts available in Government Departments.
3. In the statement filed in the writ petition, the only contention taken on behalf of the appellant/2nd respondent is that, as per Ext.P2 Special Rules, the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director can be filled up either by promotion of Steno-Typist with three years experience or by direct recruitment of candidates possessing the requisite qualification or by deputation of qualified hands from the State Government Service. Therefore, Steno-Typist has no legitimate claim, as a matter of right, for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director and as such, the said post cannot be treated as a regular promotion post for Steno-Typist. The State/1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition taking the very same stand.
4. The fact that respondents 1 to 7 possess the requisite qualification and experience for promotion to the post of P.A. to W.A.No.292/2015 3 Managing Director is not in dispute. As per Ext.P4 scheme for time bound higher grade promotion, an employee is entitled for the first higher grade on completion of 8 years of service in the entry post; second higher grade on completion of 16 years of service in the entry level post and the first regular promotion post/time bound higher grade, taken together; etc. As we have already noticed, it is not in dispute that respondents 1 to 7 have completed 8 years of service in the entry level post and as on this date they have completed 16 years of service.
5. As per clause 6 of Ext.P4 scheme, if there is a regular promotion post in respect of the categories of posts coming under pay scales ranging from 4400-6680 to 9590-16650 and if such scale of pay is higher than the corresponding higher grade proposed in tables A and B under clauses 1 and 3 of the said scheme, then the time bound higher grade for such incumbent will be the scale of pay of such regular promotion post, provided he is otherwise qualified for such promotion. Even in cases where a particular category of posts in the normal hierarchy of promotion posts is not available in a Department, the scale of pay of the normal promotion post only will be allowed as the higher grade. In the statement/counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the appellant-Corporation/1st respondent-State has not pointed out non- W.A.No.292/2015 4 availability of any particular category of post in the normal hierarchy of promotion posts in the appellant Corporation. On the other hand, their only case in the said statement/counter affidavit was that, as per the recruitment rules, Steno-Typist has no legitimate claim, as a matter of right, for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director since there are three methods of appointment (promotion/direct recruitment/deputation) and as such, the said post cannot be viewed as the regular promotion post of Steno-Typists.
6. As is evident from Ext.P5, one Smt.Shylaja Devi.R., who is the immediate senior of the 1st respondent, is granted promotion to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director and her scale of pay also is fixed at 11070-18450. As per Ext.P11 letter dated 5.1.2009, the Government has clarified that Project Assistants in the appellant/Corporation are entitled for fixation of pay in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Assistant Manager since the post of Assistant Manager is a regular promotion post. Therefore, the incumbents working in the entry cadre of Project Assistants and possessing the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Manager can be granted first higher grade on completion of 8 years of service in the entry post, in the scale of pay of such regular promotion post of Assistant Manager.
W.A.No.292/2015 5
7. Therefore, respondents 1 to 7 cannot be denied the first higher grade promotion in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director on the ground that Ext.P2 Special Rules provides for other methods of appointment to the post of Personal Assistant to Managing Director, other than the method by promotion of Steno-Typist with the requisite experience.
8. The appellant would contend that, as per the latest Government Order, i.e., G.O.(MS)No.5/2013/BCDD dated 23.5.2013, by which the pay scale in the different cadres of employees in the service of the appellant/Corporation is regularised, the pay scale of Steno-Typist is fixed two steps below the pay scale of Personal Assistants to Managing Director. On the other hand, in between Project Assistant and Assistant Manager only one category is existing. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, fixation of pay scales based on any subsequent pay revision has no relevance with respect to the issue involved, since the claim made by respondents 1 to 7 are with respect to their entitlement to time bound higher grade promotion in terms of Ext.P4 scheme of the year 2008. After considering the relevant materials, the learned Single Judge held that respondents 1 to 7 are entitled for re-fixation of pay in the pay scale of 11070-18450 on grant of first time bound higher grade on completion of 8 years of W.A.No.292/2015 6 service, which is impugned in this writ appeal. We concur with the views of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and no interference is called for, for the reasons mentioned supra.
Appeal stands dismissed.
The direction contained in the impugned judgment shall be complied with, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj/7.1.2017 True copy P.A to Judge