STATE OF KERALA Vs. M GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 14358 of 1993 (Gopalan v. State of Kerala, 1999 (1) KLT 850 ) lays down correct law in directing to compute the period of part-time contingent service also for the purpose of grade promotion in the last grade service is the question to be answered in W.A. No. 46 of 2000. The impugned judgment in W.A.No.910 of 2001 only directed the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioners therein also taking note of the judgment in O.P.No. 14358 of 1993. Petitioners in O.P.No.55 of 2001 also want the benefit of the above judgment in O.P.No. 14358 of 1993. Therefore, we will consider the facts in W.A.No.46 of 2000 where the judgment in O.P.No. 14358 of 1993 is challenged. Petitioners therein were last grade servants who retired from service from the Government. They entered into the service as part-time sweepers with effect from various dates and later became full-time employees. As per the rules, 50% of their part-time contingent service is counted as qualifying service for pension and the said service is not counted for any other purpose. They filed a representation to count the part-time contingent service for the benefit of grade promotion in accordance with IVth and Vth Pay Commission reports. The learned Judge directed that period of part-time contingent service also should be counted for grade promotion (See: Gopalan v. State of Kerala (1999 (1) KLT 850). Learned Single Judge quoted the Government order G.O.(P) No.515/85/Fin. dated 16.9.1985 on the basis of the recommendation of the IV

(2.) For understanding the rival contentions, we may consider the history of granting grade promotions. Government, by G.O.(Ms.) No.439/79/GAD dated 1.8.1979, ordered grade promotions for the first time to non gazetted officers without adequate promotional avenues and who are stagnated in the entry grade for years together. The above order reads as follows:

(3.) The relevant Government orders show that grade promotions were granted to regular employees who were not getting any promotion in the entry grade and stagnated in their posts. Clause.10(i)of 1985 Government order only deals with granting of grade promotion to those who were in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 550-800 to Rs. 1150-2270. Petitioners were not on such grade when they were part-time contingent employees and, therefore, they will be entitled to the benefit of grade promotion only after they got into that scale. However, in view of the Government Order dated 21.6.1980 for counting the number of years of service in the last grade service, their full-time contingent service can be counted. Further, when part-time contingent employees are absorbed as full-time contingent employees, their grade is changed. So, there is no stagnation. They will get the scale of pay and the amount mentioned in the order only when they are absorbed in the full-time service and even though part-time contingent service is also service and that is countable for certain purposes as mentioned in the rules. Grade promotion is provided only when an employee started his service in the pay mentioned in the respective orders. In the above circumstances, the direction of the learned Single Judge to reckon part-time contingent service rendered by the petitioners for the purpose of granting grade promotion is not correct and hence the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.A. No.46 of 2000 (1999 (1) KLT 850) is reversed. W.A.No.46 of 2000 filed by the State is allowed. However, their full-time contingent service can be counted for grade promotion in view of Government order dated 21.6.1980. That is a concession granted. Merely because such a concession was given on the basis of representation, taking into account the full-time contingent service for grade promotion, it cannot be stated that Government is bound to count part-time contingent service also for counting the period of service for the purpose of grade promotion. However, if benefits were already given, considering the fact that the petitioners were superannuated last grade employees, that should not be recovered. The representation directed to be considered by the Government in the impugned judgment in W.A. No. 910 of 2001 shall be considered accordingly taking into account the observations in this judgment. Thus W.A. No. 910 of 2001 is disposed of.