C.K. JOSE Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners were appointed as First Grade Overseers on 8th April 1969 and 1st May 1969 respectively. They were ranked as Nos. 963 and 1045 respectively in the gradation list of First Grade Overseers. In the bipartite settlement dated 25th November 1978 between the Electricity Board and the trade unions representing its employees, it was provided that First Grade Overseers completing 11 years of service in the grade would be granted a higher scale of pay of Rs. 660-1080 without any change of duties and responsibilities. The petitioners had not completed 11 years of service by the time when they were promoted as Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs. 800-1250. The first petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 20th February 1980. The 2nd petitioner was promoted later. However, one Sri V. T. Venugopal who was junior to the petitioners in the category of First Grade Overseers could obtain the benefit of higher grade of pay in that post by the time he was promoted later as an Assistant Engineer. His salary was fixed at Rs. 780 in the post of First Grade Overseer allowing higher grade on completion of 11 years of service. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 15th September 1980. When the salary was re-fixed in the higher grade of Assistant Engineer, he was granted a higher pay than the petitioners. This is entirely due to the fact that it was only after obtaining the benefit of grade promotion in the post of First Grade Overseer on completion of 11 years of service as stipulated in the agreement that Sri Venugopal obtained promotion as Assistant Engineer. Petitioners submits that since they are seniors both in the category of first Grade Overseers and in the category of Assistant Engineers and since their junior is drawing a higher salary, they are entitled to the benefit of re-fixation of salary in terms of R.28A, Part I of KSR and ruling No. 1 therein. According to the petitioners, payment of a lower amount of salary to a senior is an anomaly which has to be rectified in accordance with the above ruling. The first petitioner submitted Ext. P-1 representation seeking such rectification. That was forwarded in Ext. P-2. However, the request of the petitioner was turned down in Ext. P-3. Reference is made to Clause.14 of Art.IX of Board Order dated 2nd December 1978 accepting the memorandum of settlement whereby it was stated that "request for rectification of anomaly of juniors drawing more pay than that of seniors arising out of the grade promotion and subsequent regular promotion is not entertainable". Petitioners seek the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P-3 order.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the situation where a senior draws a lesser salary than a junior is covered by R.28A, Part I of KSR. It is his further submission that Ext. P-3 is illegal and discriminatory in so far as it refuses to refer to that statutory provision which is part of the service conditions. Reference is also made to Ext. P-5 order dated 29th March 1986, whereby, the Board ordered that the anomaly of a junior drawing higher pay than the senior should set right by re-fixing the pay of the senior at the stage equal to that fixed for the junior in the higher post in terms of R.28A, Part I KSR and Ruling No. 1 therein.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board submits that the petitioners are bound by the terms of Clause.14 of Art.IX of the agreement which was accepted by the Board in its order dated 2nd December 1978. It was agreed therein that there would be no request for rectification of anomaly of juniors drawing more pay than that of seniors arising out of the grade promotion and subsequent regular promotion on implementation of the settlement.