V GOVINDAN KUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bone of contention in this case is the comparative seniority of the petitioner vis--vis respondents 3 and 4 who are all employees of the Heath Service Department. The petitioner retired while working as Health Inspector Grade-I on 30-4-1989.

(2.) . The substance of the petitioner s contention is that notwithstanding certain Malabar Integration pursuant to the States re-organization the petitioner is entitled to get seniority with effective date of appointment ass 8-12-1953 and that if so calculated the petitioner, at the time of retirement on 30-4-1989 should have been promoted to the cadre of Technical Assistant Grade-I and that he should be given all pensionary benefits as though he was so promoted with effect from 1-7-1988. It is also his case that the breaks in his service were all condoned by the Government and hence the department is bound to treat him as a person with continuous service with effect from 8.12.1953 which was the date of joining duty, as evident from Ext. P1 seniority list which was published by the department.

(3.) The petitioner has been fighting out the matter well over quarter of a century. Based on the decision to upset Ext.P1 seniority, the petitioner was once reverted from the post of Health Inspector Grade-II. The O.P. filed challenging the reversion was allowed and the reversion quashed. When further promotion was denied, he again move this court with O.P., which was O.P.979/1979. When a final seniority list was published in 1984 the petitioner again became junior to respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner challenged the said development by filling O.P.5583/1988. His claim was that he should have been promoted as Technical Assistant Grade-I, which was equivalent to the post of District Health Educational Officer. Nearly a decade ago this court disposed of the O.P. vide Ext.P4 judgment. The department had contended that the continuous service of the petitioner commenced on 27-9-1961 only and hence the seniority petition mentioned in the view list of 1984 was correct. The court noted that respondents 3 and 4 were claiming seniority above the petitioner only based on the date of commencement of his continuous service and ignoring the fact that the breaks in service which the petitioner had rendered earlier had been condoned by the Government. The court ultimately held that the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the basis of the combined gradation list of 1984 was illegal and improper and declared that the petitioner should have been given promotion in terms of Ext.P1 before giving promotion to respondents 3 and 4. However, instead of issuing mandamus against respondents 1 and 2 therein, the court only directed that the petitioner s claim might be looked into on the basis of the observations in the judgment. It was also observed that the promotion and refixation of salary should be taken into account only for affording the pensionary benefits and that no arrears of salary would be payable to him.