C DAMODARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered service of the Department of Ports of the Government of Kerala as a Seaman in the office of the 3rd respondent on 12.4.1971. On 1.12.1982, he was appointed as an Assistant Crane Driver by recruitment by transfer in the same office in a higher scale of pay. He continued as an Assistant Crane Driver till his retirement on 30.6.1996. THE petitioner was sanctioned 20 years' higher grade with effect from 1.7.1991 considering his total service as Seaman and Assistant Crane Driver. THE petitioner claimed 25 years' higher grade also accordingly. THE same was declined to the petitioner on the ground that the service as a Seaman cannot be considered for higher grade since the appointment as Assistant Crane Driver was by transfer and not by promotion. THE petitioner filed O.P.No.19901/1997 before this Court and obtained an order to consider the petitioner's representation. That representation was rejected by Ext.P4 order. Subsequently, on 9.2.1998, by Ext.P5 order, 20 years' higher grade sanctioned was also cancelled. Aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the petitioner filed O.P.No. 4507/1998 and a learned Single Judge of this Court, by Ext.P6 judgment, allowed the prayers of the petitioner. Against Ext.P6, the State filed W.A.No.1225/2005, in which, by Ext.P7 judgment, Ext.P6 judgment was set aside and the petitioner was directed to approach the 1st respondent for appropriate reliefs in accordance with the observations in the judgment. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a representation before the 1st respondent and, after considering the same, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P8 order, whereby the retirement benefits of the petitioner were revised notionally treating him as continuing in the post of Seaman and granting the petitioner 20 years' and 25 years' grade on that basis. THE petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the said order on the ground that the petitioner should have been given 25 years' higher grade as applicable to Assistant Crane Driver and should have been granted retirement benefits also with arrears of salary as well on that basis. THE petitioner seeks the following reliefs;

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader, with the help of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, disputes the claims of the petitioner. According to him, the issue is finally settled by Ext.P7 judgment, wherein the Division Bench has categorically held that the petitioner cannot claim time bound higher grade promotion reckoning the service in another scale of pay. It is further submitted that Ext.P8 order was passed in terms of the order of the Government dated 20.3.2006, which is referred to in Ext.P8 order. He has also favoured me with a copy of that order.