M.M. RAVINDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner who joined services as a 2nd Grade Assistant in Khadi Board in the year 1982, was promoted thereafter as a 1st Grade Assistant with effect from 1988. As per Ext. P1 Special Rules that governs promotions in the said organisation, the next promotion post of the petitioner is the post of Junior Superintendent which carries the scale of pay of Rs. 5500 -9075. Going by Ext. P3 circular, issued in connection with the implementation of the 1997 Pay Revision Committee report, the petitioner was entitled to get a time bound higher grade, equivalent to that of the next promotion post in the direct line of promotion. The next promotion post was that of Junior Superintendent, carrying the pay scale aforementioned. The petitioner therefore preferred Ext. P4 representation before the respondents seeking the grant of the higher grade as applicable to the post of Junior Superintendent with effect from 10.05.1998, which was the date of exercise of the option for the grant of higher Grade. The said representation came to be rejected by Ext. P7 order dated 19.01.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred O.P 39964 of 2002 which was disposed by Ext. P9 judgment dated 19.02.2003 setting aside Ext. P7 order and directing the respondents to consider the matter afresh. The respondents, therefore, considered the matter once again and by Ext. P10 order dated 14.10.2003 rejected the representation of the petitioner yet again. On a petition filed by the petitioner to reconsider the said decision, the 3rd respondent by Ext. P11 order dated 03.02.2006 acceded to the request of the petitioner and sanctioned the 2nd time bound higher grade to the petitioner in the pay scale applicable to the post of Junior Superintendent. The 3rd respondent, however, granted the benefit only notionally with effect from 10.05.1998 and sanctioned the monetary benefits only with effect from 19.11.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Ext. P12 representation seeking the extension of the monetary benefit also with effect from 10.05.1998. By Exts. P13 and P14 representations, he also requested the 3rd respondent to sanction the 3rd time bound higher grade to him with effect from 29.05.2005. No action was, however, forthcoming from the respondents on the said representations. In the meanwhile, the petitioner received a notice from the respondents seeking recovery of amounts allegedly erroneously sanctioned to him pursuant to Ext. P11 order of the 3rd respondent. Although the petitioner preferred a reply to the same, by a Board order dated 25.05.2012, the 3rd respondent cancelled Ext. P11 order and directed the recovery of alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner pursuant to the said order. The said Board order dated 25.05.2012, is impugned in W.P.(C). No. 15201 of 2012.

(3.) ON a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that this is a case where the respondents have sought to deny the petitioner the benefit of the 2nd time bound higher grade pursuant to Ext. P3 Circular dated 25.11.1998, on the ground that there was an earlier Government Order of 1980, which clarified that even if there is no post of Head Clerk between the post of U.D. Clerks and Junior Superintendent under the Khadi Board, while giving the benefit of time bound higher grade to employees in the category of U.D. Clerks, they will be given higher grade only in the scale applicable to the post of Head Clerks. This stand of the respondent was specifically considered and rejected by a Division Bench of this Court, in a similar matter concerning an employee of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. By the judgment dated 16.06.2014 in W.A. No. 593 of 2013, it was held as follows: -