SAJU.P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in both the above cases are persons, who were promoted as Printer Grade-I on the date of declaration of probation or later to that date. When the seniority list of Printers Grade-I and Grade-II in the Government Presses were published, they were granted seniority with a retrospective date, the date on which the vacancy arose. The petitioners were also granted fixation on the basis of the retrospective dates assigned in the seniority list. Later, the same was withdrawn as per Ext.P12 produced in T.A. No.208 of 2013.

(2.) The petitioners challenged Ext.P12 as also Exts.P10 & P11. The Tribunal found that Exts.P10 & P11 have no application to the petitioners, but upheld the revision carried out in Ext.P12. The petitioners rely on the Special Rules to contend that even without declaration of probation, they could have been promoted to the higher post. It is also contended that they were promoted as Printer Grade-I from Grade-II and there is no change of duties. Rule 23(c) of Part-I Kerala Service Rules, 1959 would be squarely applicable to them, is the contention.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader relies on the very same Special Rules to contend that only after the declaration of probation, a promotion could be reckoned. It is also submitted that they had not discharged their duties in the higher post and only for the purpose of seniority, the retrospective date was assigned. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, as an alternative argument, also contend that even if the petitioners' claim is rejected, the petitioners are entitled to claim that the refund be not ordered as has been held in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih White Washer [(2015) 4 SCC 334], which principle has been followed by a Full Bench of this Court in Sasi P.K. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 (1) KHC 531 (FB)].