PRAMOD N.E. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working as Scientists Grade B in the ANERT, have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the post of Scientists Grade C to G on the date of their entitlement, going by CSIR norms. It is submitted that two persons identically situated as the petitioners had approached this Court earlier and had obtained a judgment for consideration of their claim for promotion in relaxation to the screening and assessment process as provided in the CSIR Rules. It is stated that an order was passed by the Government on the basis of representations preferred by the petitioners and the proposal was sent up by the ANERT on 22.03.2013 granting promotion to the two employees viz. Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi under CSIR pattern in relaxation of the screening and assessment process specified under KSCSTE Rules. It is stated that the petitioners are similarly situated as Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi and that they are also entitled to promotion under the CSIR pattern in relaxation to the norms regarding the screening and assessment. Petitioners had approached the Government submitting representations seeking benefits as has been extended to Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi. It was further stated that the ANERT had approached the Government seeking review of the promotion already granted to Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi and on that ground petitioners' claim has not been considered.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents contending that the benefits had been granted to Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi on the basis of the claim raised by them before the ANERT and before this Court. It is contended that the judgment directing the consideration of their request for promotion under the CSIR pattern without insisting on the screening and assessment process was a judgment-in-personam and as such, the restriction of the benefits to the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions was perfectly in order. It is stated that the earlier writ petition had been filed in the year 2006 and that the petitioners herein did not take up the matter before the ANERT or the Government. It is stated that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4172/2019 was a petitioner along with Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi but he did not appear before the Director or the Government as directed in the judgment and did not raise his claim. It is contended that he was on leave for long periods i.e. from 25.10.2008 to 28.10.2013, 28.10.2013 to 31.05.2017 and 01.06.2017 to 01.06.2018. It is contended that after having obtained the judgment and not pursued the same, the petitioner has now approached this Court after a distance of time claiming that he is entitled to the benefit as has been granted to the persons who had approached the Government and Director in due time. With regard to W.P.(C) No. 4225/2019, it is submitted that the petitioner had not raised claim along with other similarly situated persons and that claim is totally belated.

(3.) I have considered the contentions advanced. It is apparent that by Ext. P5 order, the benefit of promotion under the CSIR norms has been granted to Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi. The Government has ordered that the promotion would be granted w.e.f. the due date in relaxation of the screening and assessment procedure. The petitioners' claim is that they are identically situated to Shri. Valsaraj and Smt. Kamala Devi and that the promotion policy cannot be implemented either by the Government or ANERT to specific employees without considering the claim of identically situated persons. Raising this claim, they have preferred representations before the Government seeking the benefits as has been granted to similarly situated employees. Ext. P17 is the said representation in W.P.(C) No. 4172 of 2019 and Ext. P9 is the representation in W.P.(C) No. 4225 of 2019.