SARADA Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed originally as a part time contingent sweeper in the service of the 1st respondent-Kerala State Electricity Board on 23.11.1983. THEreafter, by Ext. P1 oder dated 6.11.1990, she was provisionally appointed as a cashier trainee. She was further promoted by Ext. P3 order as Junior Assistant/Cashier on 22.10.1997. This order was pursuant to Ext. P5 long term settlement and Article IX clause 3(iii) thereof. THE petitioner has all the qualifications prescribed for holding the post of Junior Assistant. THE petitioner was thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant on 28.9.2001 by Ext. P4 order and she was working as Senior Assistant on the date of filing of this writ petition, namely, 15.4.2005. But, she has been served with Ext. P6 show cause notice on 18.3.2005 stating that since the Public Service Commission has not granted concurrence for her appointment in 1997 as Junior Assistant and the Government of Kerala has not overruled the decision of Public Service Commission, the petitioner is liable to be reverted as part time contingent sweeper. Although the petitioner has filed Ext. P7 reply apprehending reversion, she has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) ALTHOUGH the writ petition was filed as early as on 15.4.2005, none of the respondents have filed counter affidavits. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was given the benefits of long term settlement between the Kerala State Electricity Board and the unions of its employees. Almost two years have already elapsed since the petitioner's appointment. It would totally be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is now reverted to the post of contingent sweeper at this point of time having worked for 20 long years as a Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant. The petitioner is also close to age of superannuation. This Court has also stayed the reversion as early as on 15.4.2005. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner is validly holding the post of Senior Assistant as on the date of filing of the writ petition and the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. Consequently, she is not liable to be reverted. In view of the said findings, Ext. P6 notice is quashed.