K. THANKARAJAN Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM REGIONAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common issue involved in these cases is in respect of granting of 'Higher Grade' to the 3rd respondent in W.A. No. 1231 of 2014 (who happens to be the appellant in W.A. No. 1874 of 2014), on completion of 8 years in the post of Assistant Manager (also reckoning the temporary service rendered by him in the concerned post carrying the same scale of pay); which however came to be denied to the appellant in W.A. No. 1231 of 2014, despite the fact that the appellant in W.A. 1231 of 2014 was admittedly senior to the 3rd respondent, both in the cadre of Assistant Manager and also in the cadre of Manager. The challenge raised against the temporary promotion given to the 3rd respondent was declined to be entertained by the learned single Judge, however arriving at a finding that the grade promotion to the 3rd respondent was per se wrong and illegal in all respects. But instead of ordering same to be recalled or recovered, the said benefit was ordered to be given to the appellant in W.A. No. 1231 of 2014 as well, however with a rider that it would only be notional and no monetary benefit needs to be given. The findings and observations made by the learned single Judge have been taken up by the concerned appellants (the rival contestants and the employer) to the extent they are aggrieved, as exposed in the concerned appeal.

(2.) The pleadings and proceedings are referred to, as given in W.A. No. 1231 of 2014, taking the same as the lead case, unless separately referred to, wherever it is found necessary. Contesting parties are also referred to as the 'appellant', the '3rd respondent' and the 'employer'.

(3.) Sequence of events revealed from the proceedings is that the appellant joined service of the employer as Assistant Milk Procurement Officer on 30.04.1981. The third respondent joined service in the same post, on the very same date. But by virtue of the higher age factor of the appellant, he was assigned seniority over and above the 3rd respondent, as evident from Ext. P2 seniority list. Subsequently, the appellant and the third respondent were promoted as Milk Procurement Officers as per the proceedings dated 26.06.1985 issued by the employer and this time as well, the appellant was given placement over and above the 3rd respondent, with reference to seniority, as disclosed from Exts.P2, P4 and P5. There is no dispute with regard to the factual sequence in this regard.