LITTY K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , who was appointed as Head Clerk in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as per Ext.P4 order dated 4.10.2002 and governed by the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules", is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing WP(C)No.33336/2010 filed by her, claiming the benefit of one advance increment provided as per the pay revision order issued on 25.9.1993.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for the first respondent and also the learned standing counsel for the second respondent.

(3.) THE Special Rules which govern the appointment provided that, the post of Head Clerk in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is to be filled up by promotion from the feeder category. Subsequently, by Ext.P2, the Rule was amended and instead of promotion, the method of filling up of the post of Head Clerk was specified as 'appointment'. This position continued until Ext.P3 was issued on 21.1.2006 again amending the rule and making the method of appointment by transfer. The aforesaid provision of the Rule shows that, on 4.10.2002, when the appellant was appointed as Head Clerk, the method of filling up of the post was appointment and not appointment by way of promotion. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of pay revision order which is available only to those who are promoted. Learned senior counsel contended that one of the method of recruitment is appointment by way of promotion. Therefore, according to him, the appointment of the appellant to the post of Head Clerk should also be taken as a case of promotion.