D SASIDHARAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner retired from service while working as Driver Special Grade-II, on 31.05.2017. Since the petitioner was due for promotion as Driver Special GradeI, he had submitted Ext.P6 application before the 3rd respondent on 11.05.2017 requesting to grant him promotion. He thereafter approached this Court in W.P. (C).No.16768 of 2017 and by Ext.P7 judgment dated 23.05.2017 this Court directed the third respondent to consider his request and to pass orders, after affording him an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner had submitted a supplementary representation Ext.P8. Thereafter, by Ext.P9 order, the 3rd respondent-the Chief Engineer (HRM) rejected the representation, stating that the provision for reviewing ratio promotions as on the 1st day of April every year, which was available in the 2000 settlement was not incorporated in the Long Term Settlement 2007, from 01.08.2003 onwards, and therefore, the claim of petitioner for review of promotion would not stand in the eye of law. Referring to the judgments in State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Dass, 1966 AIR(SC) 1547 : 1996 (2) SCR 907, AIR 1974 SC 259 : 1974 (1) SCC 317 : 1974 (1) SLR 470], Dwaraka Prasad v. Union of India, 2003 6 SCC 535 and T.N. Electricity Board v. T.N. Electricity Board Thozhillair Aykkiya Sangam, 2008 3 SCC 359, the third respondent found that petitioner does not have any right to claim promotion and it is the prerogative of the employer to decide as to what should be the channel of promotion for technical and for non technical persons. It was stated:

(2.) Petitioner had only requested for granting the promotion which is due to him in accordance with the Long Term Settlement. Clause D under Article 7 of Ext.P1 Long Term Settlement, 1995, provided the following:

(3.) Thereafter, when the Long Term Settlement 2000 (Ext.P2) came into force, Clause 24 provided: