STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA AND OTHERS Vs. SRI. V.K. BALAGOPAL MARAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by the State challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (KAT for short) in T.A. No. 4534 of 2012 dated 20.02.2017. As per the impugned order evidenced herein by Annexure A3, the Tribunal has found that the first respondent was entitled to back wages on being notionally promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture with effect from 26.11.1994 and the arrears due to him from 26.11.1994 to 10.11.1997.

(2.) The first respondent was charge sheeted alleging grave irregularities and was proceeded against departmentally. A punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on him. The punishment was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in O.P. No. 2073 of 1993. The said Writ Petition was considered along with two Writ Appeals filed by the State and was allowed by exhibit P1 judgment. This Court found that the first respondent had been imposed with the punishment for an offence for which he was not charge sheeted. No opportunity to file explanation against the charge or to contest the same had been afforded. For the above reason, this Court found that there was violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the relevant statutory Rules. Therefore, the punishment was set aside. Since the first respondent had been denied the promotion that was rightfully due to him, he was directed to be paid all the benefits, as though he had been promoted. Thereafter, he was issued exhibit P2 order dated 10.03.2004 granting notional promotion to the cadre of Deputy Director of Agriculture with effect from 26.11.1994. However, it was ordered that no arrears of pay or other benefits would be given to him. It was aggrieved by the said proceedings that, he had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) It was contended that since he had been denied the promotion that was rightly due to him, it was only appropriate that he was granted all the benefits as though he had been promoted. The claim of the first respondent was contested by the petitioners herein. According to them, Rule 23(c), Part I Kerala Service Rules (KSR for short) dis-entitles the first respondent from claiming back wages.