Kerala High Court
A.Baby vs Chairman, Marine Products Export ... on 4 November, 2025
2025:KER:87506
W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26409 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
A.BABY
AGED 68 YEARS
RETD.ASSISTANT, MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, RESIDING AT 'AISWARYA', THURUTHI TEMPLE
ROAD, CHAMPAKKARA, MARADU P.O., 682 304 ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
KUM.RIMJU P.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHAIRMAN, MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
KOCHI-682 036
2 MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI 682 036
3 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR PORMOTION AS
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT
MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI-682 036, REP.BY ITS CONVENOR, CHAIRMAN, MPEDA
2025:KER:87506
W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :2:
4 REKHA M.PRITHIYANI
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, YOGAKSHEMA, REGIONAL CENTRE,
PANVEL, 41, TRIFED TOWER, 4TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.3,
SECTOR-17, CIDCO AREA, MUMBAI-PUNE HIGHWAY,
PANVEL(W), NAVI MUMBAI-410 206, MAHARASHTRA
5 ADDL.R5.M.L.KURIAKOSE
MALIYAM VEETTIL, KUMBALAM, KOCHI
(ADDL.R5 AND R6 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
10-09-2024 IN IA 2/23 IN WP(C) 26409/20)
6 ADDL.R6.AYSHA AYYAPPAN
SREE KRISHNA, 8/275,VARMA ROAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR,
KOCHI
(ADDL.R5 AND R6 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
10-09-2024 IN IA 2/23 IN WP(C) 26409/20)
BY ADVS.
SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:87506
W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.26409 of 2020
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P-36 reply and Ext.P-
47 proceedings of the 3rd respondent Departmental Promotion Committee and to quash the same.
ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ or order commanding the 1 st and 2nd respondents to constitute a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent w.e.f 16-4-2002/29-5-2002 or 12-5-2003 against the 7th or 15th post reserved for Scheduled Caste community as per the Ext.P-9 OM issued by the Government of India and Ext.P1, P-3 and P7 judgments of this Hon'ble Court and in accordance with the law, untrammeled by the findings made in Ext.P-47 proceedings of the 3rd respondent Departmental Promotion Committee.
iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as Junior Superintendent 'retrospectively w.e.f 16-4-2002/29-5- 2002 or 12-5-2003 and to pay arrears of salary, revision of pension and all other monetary benefits accordingly and also to pay interest at 12% p.a. upon therein from the date when the 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :4: above amounts became due till the payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner.
iv) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ direction or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant compensation for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for the acute mental agony, sufferings and harassment undergone and the substantial prejudice and loss caused to the petitioner and the resultant damages sustained by her on account of the arbitrary and unlawful denial of her eligible promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent, which became due since 16-4- 2002/29-5-2002 or 12-5-2003 and all the consequential service benefits, ignoring her numerous representations for the same evidenced by Ext.P-2, P-4, P-18, P-30 to P-34, P-37 etc, on account of their wrongful and discriminatory acts committed by them during the last two decades, especially after the passing of Ext.P-1 judgment dated 3-4-2009, which has been upheld by Ext.P-3 and P-7 judgments of this Hon'ble Court, even after the elapse of more than a decade.
v. grant such other reliefs as may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is a retired employee of the Marine Products Export Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'MPEDA' for short) belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner entered the service of the 2 nd respondent MPEDA as Junior Clerk on 02.09.1980 and she was promoted as Senior Clerk on 01.01.1988. The next promotion is to 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :5: the post of Assistant. Since the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, she was entitled for earlier promotion in the vacancy or to the post reserved for SC, in preference to the employees in the feeder category belonging to the general/un- reserved category. Even though the petitioner was the senior-most Senior Clerk from 1994 onwards, she was unlawfully denied due promotion to the post of Assistant in the vacancy/post reserved for the Scheduled Caste, though her several juniors belonging to the general category were promoted to the said post, ignoring or rejecting her request for the grant of promotion. Thereupon, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, filing OP.No.38301/2002, which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment, the operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
" 3. Ext. P16 is dated 26-10-2006. Ext. P16(a) is dated 23-7- 2007. More than 1 ½ years have gone by. In spite of granting sufficient time, the respondents are not able to take a decision. They now seek further time. I am not inclined to grant further time. In any event, since I have already considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents in detail and have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is eligible for the promotion she has claimed, I am inclined to allow the original petition. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed. Since the MPEDA themselves have, by Ext. P16, decided to 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :6: promote the petitioner with effect from 13-11-1997, I direct that such promotion shall be with effect from that date. The petitioner shall also be eligible all monetary benefits arising therefrom. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears disbursed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
(Underline supplied) As per the said judgment, taking into consideration that the MPEDA themselves have decided to promote the petitioner with effect from 13.11.1997, the Court directed that such promotion shall be with effect from that date and that the petitioner shall be eligible for all monetary benefits arising therefrom. Even after passing Ext.P1 judgment on 03.04.2009, several other juniors were promoted even to the post of Junior Superintendent. Thereafter, challenging Ext P1 judgment, an appeal was preferred by the MPEDA as W.A.No.1861/2009, which was ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P3. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
"3. Thus even according to the appellants it was the admitted case that the first respondent was the senior most Senior Clerk, in the SC category. It was also the admitted case that the vacancy at the 7th post of the roster operated by the appellants, which is a post reserved for SC category, arose on 13.11.1997. If that be so, in the light of Ext.P16 decision of the appellants, the 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :7: first respondent was entitled to have been promoted as Assistant.
We see absolutely no error in the judgment warranting interference in this writ appeal. Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed."
(Underline supplied) Thereafter, though belatedly, respondents 1 and 2 assigned seniority to the petitioner in the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997, as per Ext.P5 order. Though seniority was assigned to the petitioner with effect from 13.11.1997, the monetary benefits and other resultant promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent were denied to the petitioner arbitrarily. Thereupon, a contempt of court case was filed by the petitioner. While so, one Smt. M.K.Usha and Smt.K.Indumathy, who were not parties to Exts.P1 and P3, filed a review petition seeking review of the judgment in W.A.No.1861 of 2009. The said review petition was disposed of as per Ext.P7 order. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
" 2. Having regard to the fact that the contesting party respondents have already retired from service, the factual situation was ascertained by us from the counsel for the MPEDA. According to the learned counsel, by order dated 16.6.2011, the judgment in the writ appeal has been given effect to. In so far as the review petitioners are concerned, their interests were also 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :8: safeguarded consequent on the status quo order passed by this Court in the review petition.
3. Having regard to the above and also the retirement of of all the parties, we are of the view that at this distance of time, the position as obtained at the time of retirement of the review petitioners cannot be disturbed. In so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the MPEDA has already issued orders implementing the judgment in the writ appeal and therefore, necessarily she is also entitled to be received any benefits consequential thereto, if not already disbursed.
The review petition is accordingly disposed of."
The Court taking note of the fact that all the parties including the review petitioners and respondents have retired from service, as per order dated 25.05.2018 held that, at this distance of time, the position as obtained at the time of retirement of the review petitioners cannot be disturbed and as far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the MPEDA has already issued orders implementing the judgment in the writ appeal and therefore, she is also entitled to receive any benefits consequential thereto, if not already disbursed.
3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997 was declared by this Court as per Ext.P1 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 :9: judgment dated 03.04.2009. But Ext.P7 order in the review petition was passed only on 25.05.2018, after a gap of almost 9 years, and in the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2012. The petitioner would submit that, as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Superintendent, the method of recruitment is 100% by promotion. The above Rule provides that Officers in the grade of 5000-150-8000 with 3 years experience in the grade, who have opted for channel-I, is entitled for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent. The petitioner has produced Ext.P8 - copy of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Superintendent, to substantiate her contention. The petitioner would submit that at least with effect from 13.11.2000, ie., after completion of 3 years in the post of Assistant, she is eligible to be promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent, since her seniority in the post of Assistant has been declared to be with effect from 13.11.1997. The petitioner would submit that her communicated ACRs were always good and further, the petitioner is also entitled to get preferential promotion as Junior Superintendent on the basis of the communal reservation for the Scheduled Caste community, which she is entitled to as per the 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 10 : post-based roster stipulated by the Government of India with effect from 02.07.1997. The petitioner relies on Ext.P9 Office Memorandum, which provides that after the operation of the vacancy-based roster, vacancies released by retirement, resignation, promotion, etc. of the persons belonging to the general and reserved categories are to be filled up by appointment of persons from the respective category, so that the present percentage of reservations is maintained. The petitioner would submit that no Scheduled Caste candidate was promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent in the MPEDA against the 7 th post reserved for SC or the next 15 th post reserved for SC, after the issuance of Ext.P9 OM and both the above reserved posts were filled up by promoting the employees belonging to the general category. It is also submitted that the petitioner is eligible to be promoted as Junior Superintendent with effect from 13.11.2000, and she is entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent against the 7 th post, which has to be carried forward as no Scheduled Caste candidate was available at the relevant time. The petitioner would submit that several persons were promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent overlooking 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 11 : the claim of the petitioner, even her juniors were promoted to the said post. Thereupon, several representations were filed by the petitioner, which evoked no response. Ultimately, the petitioner filed Ext.P26 request in this regard, to which Ext.P27 reply was given along with a copy of the note and proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), held on 30.09.2019. It is pertinent to refer to the note of the DPC held on 30.09.2019, which reads as follows:
"THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE TO BE HELD ON 30-9-2019.10 TO CONSIDER THE PROMOTION OF SMT. A BABY, ASSISTANT (RETD) TO THE POST JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT Smt. A. Baby has joined at MPEDA Head Office as Junior Clerk w.e.f. 02.09.1980 and retired from the services on superannuation on 31.01.2012. She got promotion as Senior Clerk on 01.01.1988 and Assistant on 13.11.1997.
Judgment in W.A.No.1861 of 2009 it has stated that Smt. A. Baby was entitled to have been promoted as Assistant wef 13-11- 1997 hence office has modified its earlier office order dated 13-2- 2008 and made effective of her promotion wef 13-11-1997 instead of 13-2-2008 (Office Order Part II No.730 dated 16.06.2011). The promotion order issued to Smt. A. Baby for the post of Assistant w.e.f. 13.02.2008 is modified and promotion is made effective from 13.11.1997 which was challenged by other 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 12 : employees. The Authority has also taken a decision to conduct review DPC to promote Smt. A. Baby, Sr. Clerk to the post of Assistant w.e.f. 13.11.1997. The review DPC held on 17.04.2007 and her promotion to the post of Assistant was made effective from 13-11-1997.
In the R.P.No.446 of 2011 in W.A.No. 1861 of 2009 dated 25 th May, 2018 it has mentioned that Smt. A. Baby is also entitled to be received any benefit consequential there to if not already disbursed. In response to this vide Office Order Part II No.89 dated 13.09.2018 the pay of Smt. A. Baby, Assistant was re-fixed w.e.f. 13.1.1997 and disbursed, pension also re fixed accordingly. Now Smt. A. Baby has represented for promotion to the next post of Junior Superintendent w.e.f. 16.04.2002.
As per the post based roster of Junior Superintendent Sl.No.7 & 15 reserved for SC. 7th reservation post was filled with Smt. P Leela (UR) instead of 7th post the 9th post was filled with Shri Darshan Lal Dhondiyal (SC) on 03.07.1995 (open recruitment). The 15th post was filled with Shri M L Kuriyako (UR) on 21.03.2007 because there was no SC candidates in the feeder category. While considering Smt. A. Baby (SC) as Assistant w.e.f. 13.11.1997, she is eligible for getting promotion to the 15 th post of Junior Superintendent on reservation ie w.e.f. 21.03.2007.
Most of the officials who got promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent had retired from the services of MPEDA, the question of reversion while accommodating Smt. A. Baby to the post Junior Superintendent w.e.f. 21.03.2007 does not arise.
2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 13 : It is clarified with the Audit (IPA), their version is that the Court's unequivocal order was for restoring to her all consequent benefits right from 13 November, 1997. Hence if the pensioner was senior most consequent to the order, she should be given the promotion on 21 March, 2007 also, followed by enhanced retirement benefits.
The matter is placed before the DPC for taking a suitable decision in the light of judgment vide R.P.No.446 of 2011 in W.A.No.1861 of 2009 dated 25th May, 2018."
(Underline supplied) The petitioner would submit that on a perusal of Ext.P27, even the authorities in the MPEDA, while submitting the note to the DPC, have categorically held that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was given seniority as Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997, she is eligible for getting promotion to the 15 th post of Junior Superintendent on reservation w.e.f 21.03.2007. Even thereafter, the petitioner submitted several representations to consider her claim for promotion. The petitioner would submit that after a long delay, Ext.P36 communication was issued to the petitioner stating that the representation dated 18.06.2019 submitted by the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent with retrospective effect from 16.04.2022 was 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 14 : placed in the DPC held on 30.09.2019 and the DPC decided to defer the case for want of more legal clarification and decided to place the matter in the next DPC to be held on 17.06.2020. The DPC examined the facts and found that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent, upsetting the promotions already made to the cadre of Junior Superintendent. The relevant portion of Ext.P36 communication reads as follows:
"The representation dated 18.06.2019 was placed in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 30.09.2019 and the DPC decided to defer the case for want of more legal clarification. The case with clarification was placed in the next DPC held on 17.06.2020. The DPC examined the facts and found that Smt. A. Baby is not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent upsetting the promotions already made to the cadre of Junior Superintendent. In the circumstances, Smt. A Baby is informed that her claim for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent cannot be considered and accordingly rejected."
The petitioner submits that the reasons stated in Ext.P36 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. Several of her juniors were promoted overlooking her claim.
2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 15 : Aggrieved by Ext.P36 reply, again several representations were filed by the petitioner and ultimately by Ext.P47 proceedings of the DPC held on 17.06.2020 the claim of the petitioner was rejected solely relying on the opinion given by the Standing Counsel to MPEDA that the claim made by the petitioner after retirement from the services of MPEDA is only to be rejected at this distance of time and also on the ground that she did not have any legal right to claim promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent based on the judgment in OP No.38301 of 2002 and in the judgment in WA No.1861 of 2009 and the order dated 25.05.2018 in RP.No.446 of 2011 of this Court, which were limited to the claim for promotion to the post of Assistant and consequential monetary benefits based on such promotion. The relevant portion of Ext.P47 reads as follows:
"Smt. A. Baby has joined at MPEDA Head Office as Junior Clerk w.e.f. 02.09.1980 and retired from the services on superannuation on 31.01.2012. During the service she was promoted as Senior Clerk on 01.01.1988 and Assistant on 13.02.2008 respectively.
Smt. A Baby challenged the promotion order on the ground that she had to get the promotion of Assistant w.e.f. 13/11/1997. The Hon'ble High Court has upheld her contention and directed MPEDA to give her promotion with effect from 13/11/1997 with 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 16 : all consequential monetary benefits. Accordingly. MPEDA has disbursed all the benefits to her. After getting all the benefits due to her on account of promotion to the post of Assistant, she represented that she has to get the next level promotion as Junior Superintendent. The representation was considered in the DPC held on 30/09/2019 and directed to obtain the legal opinion on this from the Standing Council of MPEDA. The legal opinion obtained from the Standing Council placed before the DPC. The Standing Council give the advise that "claim made by Smt.A Baby after retirement from the services of MPEDA is only to be rejected as not entertainable at this distance of time and also on the ground that she did not have any legal right to claim promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent based on the judgment in OP No.38301 of 2002 and in the judgment WA No.1861 of 2009 and the order dated 25.05.2018 in RP.NO.446 of 2011 of the Hon'ble High Court which were limited to the claim for promotion to the post of Assistant and consequential monetary benefits based on such promotion".
The Departmental Promotion Committee noted this and decided to reject her request and inform Smt. A baby accordingly." It is aggrieved by the said rejection as per Exts.P36 and P47 that the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner would submit that the reasons stated in Exts.P36 and P47 are absolutely without any basis and that the contention of the petitioner has not been properly considered at all.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 17 : respondent MPEDA to contend that the claim raised by the petitioner is barred by limitation, since she is claiming for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent after a lapse of more than 8 years and 10 months after the retirement of the petitioner. Reliance was also placed on the order in R.P.No.446 of 2011 filed by two other employees who were promoted earlier, and in the said order, it is stated that their promotions will not be affected by the retrospective promotion granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that on the date of convening the DPC for selection to the post of Junior Superintendent, the petitioner was not in the feeder category and the petitioner has not challenged the promotion granted to the employees to the post of Junior Superintendent, at any point of time and the persons who were promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent have already retired from service and it is not permissible or possible to review those promotions at this distance of time. It is also submitted that even if the seniority in the feeder category is changed, that will not affect the promotion already granted to the juniors based on merit. As regards the promotion granted to the 7 th roster point and 15th roster point it is submitted that, as on the date of occurrence of the 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 18 : vacancy in the 7th roster point, there was no eligible SC/ST candidate and that the 15th post was filled with Sri.M.L.Kuriyako - the additional 5th respondent herein, as there was no SC candidate in the feeder category at the relevant time. It is further contended that even if considering the petitioner as Assistant w.e.f. 13.11.1997, she is not eligible for getting promotion to the 15 th roster point of Junior Superintendent on reservation w.e.f. 21.03.2007 as the additional 5 th respondent was appointed as Junior Superintendent, de-reserving the post on that date. On the above-said contentions, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent MPEDA sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. The specific case of the petitioner is that she has been denied her due promotion to the reserved post, since she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Ultimately, by Ext.P1 judgment, this Court has decided that the petitioner should be given promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997 and directed to pay all the monetary benefits arising therefrom. The said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P3. It is true that two employees, who were 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 19 : promoted earlier have approached this court by filing a review petition, and this Court by Ext.P7 order directed that as all the parties have retired, at this distance of time the position as obtained at the time of retirement of the review petitioners shall not be disturbed, but the petitioner will be entitled to receive any benefits consequent to the decision of this Court in Exts.P1 and P3 judgments. The claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent, taking into consideration her eligibility for a roster point promotion, being a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was rejected by Exts.P36 and P47. The reason stated in Ext.P36 is that the request of the petitioner was placed in the DPC held on 30.09.2019, and the DPC decided to defer the case for getting more legal clarification and decided to place the matter before the next DPC to be held on 17.06.2020, but a finding has been entered into that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent, upsetting the promotion already made to the cadre of Junior Superintendent. The reason stated in Ext.P47 Minutes of the DPC, which was held on 17.06.2020 is that the petitioner has no legal right for claiming promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 20 : based on Exts.P1 and P3 judgments, since the Court has limited the claim of the petitioner for promotion only to the post of Assistant and the consequential monetary benefits based on such promotion. Similar contention was taken in the counter-affidavit filed by MPEDA. Therefore, on a combined reading of Exts.P36, P47 and the counter affidavit reveals that the essential contention raised is that the petitioner cannot be given promotion upsetting the promotions already granted to the post of Junior Superintendent and further that this Court in Exts.P1 and P3 has only considered the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant and the consequential monetary benefits based on such promotion and that the claim of the petitioner for promotion cannot be considered after she had retired from service.
7. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the MPEDA would further show that, when roster point promotions were considered, to the 7th and 15th roster point, there was no candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste community in the feeder category at the relevant point of time. It is true that the petitioner's eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997 was declared by this Court only on 03.04.2009, and 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 21 : ultimately, the review petition was disposed of by this Court only on 25.05.2018 and in the meanwhile, on 31.01.2012, the petitioner retired from service in the post of Assistant itself. It is equally true that the respondents who were promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent have already retired from service and when the 7 th and 15th roster points arose, which are reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste community for the promotion post of Junior Superintendent, the petitioner was not in the feeder category, since her eligibility for promotion was declared only by Ext.P1 judgment. But the crucial fact to be taken into consideration is that the eligibility of the petitioner for the promotion post of Assistant was found by this Court to be with effect from 13.11.1997. A perusal of Ext.P1 judgment would reveal that the MPEDA has also taken a decision to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997. It is taking note of the said fact that the direction was issued as per Ext.P1 to promote the petitioner with effect from 13.11.1997 with all monetary benefits, including arrears of pay and benefits, which was also upheld by this Court in Ext.P3. Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent has to be 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 22 : considered in the light of the declaration made by this Court in Ext.P1, which categorically directed that the petitioner should be treated as promoted with effect from 13.11.1997 and that she will be entitled to count her seniority in the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997. An important document to be looked into in this context is Ext.P27 - note of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 30.12.2019, which specifically states that as per the post- based roster of Junior Superintendent Sl. Nos.7 & 15 are reserved for the Scheduled Caste, and since there was no member in the Scheduled Caste in the feeder category, the 7 th and 15th posts were filled up from the general category. But the note specifically states that while considering the petitioner as Assistant w.e.f. 13.11.1997, she is eligible for getting promotion to the 15 th post of Junior Superintendent on reservation w.e.f. 21.03.2007. Though such a note was given as per Ext.P27, while issuing Ext.P36 and P47, the said note was not taken into consideration at all. The finding in Ext.P47 that this Court by Exts.P1 and P3 has only considered the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant alone and the consequential monetary benefits based on such promotion and therefore, the petitioner cannot stake a claim for 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 23 : promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent based on Exts.P1 and P3, is only to be rejected. By Exts.P1 and P3, this Court has declared that the seniority of the petitioner to the post of Assistant has to be treated as 13.11.1997 and based on the said declaration the MPEDA was legally bound to consider the claim of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent, taking into consideration the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997. The DPC, which convened as evident from Exts.P36 and P47 were all after the retirement of the petitioner in the year 2012 and the DPC ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner treating the petitioner's seniority in the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997, which has not been done in Exts.P36 and P47 proceedings, especially when Ext.P27 notes specifically recommended that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent in the 15 th post based roster, with effect from 21.03.2007.
8. A contention has been raised by the learned Government Pleader stating that the promotion has been claimed after the date of retirement and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 24 : promotion after she had retired from service and in support of the said contention the learned Government Pleader relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. [(2025) 1 Supreme 418], wherein it is held that promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of vacancy or the date of recommendation and that the promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement as it requires actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of the promotional post and therefore held that an employee who has superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post, as he did not serve in that capacity. The learned Government Pleader also relies on the judgment in Mohanan v. State of Kerala [2000 KHC 451] wherein this Court has held that the appointment authority can review the faults in the appointment order only within a reasonable time and it cannot have any adverse effect on the vested rights of the others. The learned Government Pleader also relies on the judgment in Raghavan Nair M.P. v. State Insurance Officer and Others 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 25 : [1971 KHC 125] and contended that the petitioner who failed to challenge the earlier promotion cannot be allowed to question that in the new petition. I am afraid, the decision cited Supra cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. Dr. Amal Satpathi's case cited Supra was considered by another Bench of the Apex Court in K.Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors. [2025 Supreme(SC) 232]. In the said judgment the Apex Court held that the judgment in Dr. Amal Satpathi's case is not applicable, since the result of the promotion was not kept in abeyance in that case, but, before the approval for promotion could be received to the post, the incumbent had superannuated and the Court directed to grant promotion with all monetary benefits, since the non-grant of the promotion to the petitioner therein was not due to any fault on his part. It is to be seen that this Court has found in Ext.P1 that the petitioner ought to have been promoted with effect from 13.11.1997 and all eligible monetary benefits arising therefrom shall be extended to the petitioner. Only in 03.04.2009 the Court has held that the petitioner is entitled for promotion, but with effect from 13.11.1997. The finding of the Court in Ext.P1 categorically prove that the petitioner is entitled 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 26 : for promotion with effect from 13.11.1997 and her promotion has been denied absolutely without any reason to support the same. Likewise, the department ought to have granted further promotion taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997, which the department did not do, taking a stand that in Ext.P1, only promotion to the post of Assistant alone was considered by this Court and there was no further direction by this Court to grant further promotion. The said stand taken by the department is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. When this Court has found that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997, it was incumbent on the part of the department to grant further benefits to the petitioner without any further direction being issued by this Court. Further it is to be seen that in Ext.P27 note of the Department Promotion Committee which held on 30.09.2019, it is clear that the department is of the view that as per the post based roster of Junior Superintendent Sl.Nos.7 & 15 are reserved for Scheduled Caste and since there was no member in the Scheduled Caste in the feeder category, the 7th and 15th posts were filled up from the general category and 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 27 : specifically finds that while considering the petitioner as Assistant w.e.f. 13.11.1997, she is eligible for getting promotion to the 15 th post of Junior Superintendent on reservation w.e.f. 21.03.2007. It is overlooking such a finding in the note that Exts.P36 and P47 have been issued, without any reasons to support the same. It was incumbent on the part of the department to grant her promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent taking into consideration the seniority of the petitioner in the post of Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997, and it is held that the petitioner is entitled for the promotion to the 15th post of Junior Superintendent, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste on the post based roster with effect from 21.03.2007.
9. The next question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the monetary benefits for the said period from 21.03.2007. This Court in State of Kerala v. Jayakrishnaraj G. [2024 Supreme (Ker) 1321] has held that if due to any fault on the part of the department in granting timely promotion, the employee cannot be denied the benefit legitimately due to him and directed to comply with the order passed by the tribunal to grant promotion with all accompanying financial benefits from the original dates it was due.
2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 28 : The Apex Court in State of Kerala v. E.K.Bhaskaran Pillai, [2007 (6) SCC 524] has held that the principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot be accepted as a thumb rule and the matter will have to be considered on a case to case basis. This Court in Rajappan Nair v. State of Kerala [1984 KLT 141], Sivarajan v. State of Kerala [1993 (2) KLT 287], Somukuttan Nair v. State [1997 (1) KLT 601], State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai [2003 (1) KLT 60], Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah [2007(7) SCC 689], Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 2904], and in Valsalakurari Devi v. State of Kerala [2016(2) KLT 145] held that in cases where an employee is found to be entitled for promotion with a particular pay, and it was not due to any fault on the part of the employee that he was prevented from actually working in the promoted category, the employee is entitled for all monetary benefits arising out of the promotion. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and the decisions cited Supra, I am of the view that non-grant of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Junior Superintendent even after Ext.P1 judgment, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for promotion with effect from 13.11.1997 and 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 29 : the note to the DPC, which categorically states that if the petitioner is considered as an Assistant with effect from 13.11.1997, she is eligible for getting promotion to the 15th post of Junior Superintendent on reservation with effect from 21.03.2007, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for all monetary benefits arising, treating that the petitioner is promoted as Junior Superintendent retrospectively with effect from 21.03.2007.
10.Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the DPC for promotion, at least with effect from 21.03.2007 in the 15 th post of Junior Superintendent, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste, which has been recommended as per Ext.P27.
In light of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:
1. Exts.P36 and P47 proceedings are set aside.
2. There will be a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner to have been promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent retrospectively with effect from 21.03.2007, the date on 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 30 : which the additional 5th respondent was promoted to the 15th post, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste as per post based roster and pay arrears of salary, revision of pension and all other monetary benefits to the petitioner.
3. The consequential orders and the monetary benefits shall be paid to the petitioner without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
4. The claim for interest on the delayed payment is left open.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 31 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26409/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.4.2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP.38301/02 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.3.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1861/09 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.4.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ORDER DATED 16.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE OF LIAISON OFFICER OF MPEDA SUBMITTED TO 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COUT IN R.P.NO.446/2011 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36012/296-
ESTT(RES) DATED 2.7.1997 ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF JUNIOR
SUPERINTENDENTS PREPARED BY THE
PETITITIONER
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.5.2002
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ORDER
NO.12/4/PERS/2002/HO
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.5.2003
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ORDER
NO.2/4/PERS/2003/HO
EXHIBIT P12 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.5.2003
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.PF.499/PERS
2025:KER:87506
W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 32 :
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.4.2009
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ORDER
NO.12/4/PERS/2009/HO
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.4.2009
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.12/4/PERS/2009/HO
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2008
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.12/4/PERS/2006/HO
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2008
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.12/4/PERS/2006/HO
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2008
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.12/4/PERS/2006/HO
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.7.2010
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.12/4/PERS/2006/HO
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.3.2011
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
NO.12/4/PERS/2010/I(C)
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF HTE E-MAIL REPRESENTATION
DATED 15.2019 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8.5.2019
FROM DEPUTY DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18.6.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5.2.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER R.T.I.
ACT.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE
CPIO ON 19.3.2020
2025:KER:87506
W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 33 :
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
3.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MPEDA UNDER RIGHT OT INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.1.2020 OF THE ASST.DIRECTOR (DEV) AND CPIO ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE NOTE AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE DPC HELD ON 30.9.2019 EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.2.2020 OF THE ASST.DIRECTOR (DEV) AND CPIO TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL REPRESENTATION DATED 27.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P30 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN AND CONVENOR OF THE DPC EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.7.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL APPLICATION DATED 15.7.2020 UNDER RTI ACT EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.8.2020 BY THE CPIO OF MPEDA EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.8.2020 OF DR.RAM MOHAN K.K., JOINT DIRECTOR (QC)/ADMN IN-CHARGE TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT 2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 34 : EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.8.2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CPIO OF 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.10.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P41 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT AS ON 31.12.2019 EXHIBIT P41 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT AS ON 1.1.2006 EXHIBIT P41 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENTS AS ON 31.12.2013 FURNISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P42 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CPIO OF MPEDA EXHIBIT P43 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.10.2020 GIVEN BY THE CPIO TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P44 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.10.2020 FURNISHED BY THE CPIO TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ON 21.8.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT EXHIBIT P46 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.10.2020 OF THE CPIO TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P47 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DPC HELD ON 17.6.2020 FORWARDED ALONG WITH EXT.P-46 EXHIBIT P48 TRUE COPY OD THE REPLY DATED 6.11.2020 OF THE CPIO TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P49 TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 21-1-2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.
2025:KER:87506 W.P.(C). No.26409 of 2020 : 35 : Exhibit P50 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.36012/17/2002-ESTT (RES) DATED 6-11-2003 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING.