RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'the appellant is the writ petitioner. He was appointed on a provisional basis as a Junior Engineer under R. 9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules in the Public Works Department by an order dated 27-7-1971. When he was working in the post of Junior Engineer, he was advised by the Public Service Commission for the same post and in pursuance to the said advice, the Chief Engineer issued an appointment order dated 12-31973 and pursuant to that order the appellant joined service on 14-6-1973. His ranking is covered by his entry into the service on 14-6-1973. However, the pay and allowances were fixed on the basis that he was having continuous service from 7-8-1971. The appellant-writ petitioner now claims that he is entitled to count his regular service from 27-7-1971, the date on which he was provisionally appointed under R. 9 (a) (i) rather than from the date of his regular appointment, ie. , 14-6-1973. It is stated that some representations had been given earlier but they were not in the records. The earliest representation on record is one dated 15-11-1988 (Ext. P5) seeking seniority from 27-7-1971. That would mean that the appellant has raised the issue nearly 15 years after he was regularly appointed. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on R. 9 (e ). It is also stated that under Ext. P11 certain other officers had been given relaxation under R. 39 of the Rules.

(2.) THE learned single judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that seniority is governed by R. 27 (a) of the Rules and that that rule does not permit any service rendered under R. 9 (a) (i) to be computed. It is against this judgment that the writ petitioner has come up in appeal.

(3.) IT is then submitted that the Government had issued relaxation as per Ext. P11 to other officers in the department on the basis of the judgment in OP 509 of 1984 and OP 6576 of 1984. We may point out that W. A. 80 of 1989 preferred against the judgment in O. P. 509 of 1984 is pending in this court as the matter has been stayed by the Supreme Court. We may also state that the judgment in O. P. 6576 of 1984 is a judgment following OP 509 of 1984 and, in fact, W. A. 629 of 1991 is pending in this Court against the judgment in O. P. 6576 of 1984. Be that as it may, the Government has thought it fit to issue relaxation under R. 39 of the Rules as per Ext. Pll order dated 4-1-1990 in favour of certain officers which is a special power of relaxation. So far as the representation, Ext. PS, made by the writ petitioner on 15-11-1988 is concerned, it is not an application invoking the powers under R. 39. We are not, here, concerned with the question whether R. 39 applies to the case of the writ petitioner or whether he is entitled to any relief under R. 39. We are here only concerned with the legal propositions laid down in O. Ps. 509 of 1984 and 6576 of 1984 against which Writ Appeals are still pending. We have already held that the judgment in OP 509 of 1984 is not correct and inasmuch as the judgment in OP 6576 of 1984 follows the judgment in OP 509 of 1984, the said judgment is also not correct. We approve the decision of Sivaraman Nair, J. in Sukumaran v. State of Kerala (ILR 1987 (2) Ker. 263) which was, in fact, confirmed in W. A. 548 of 1986. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. . .