Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VENUGOPAL E. versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION)

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VENUGOPAL E. v. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION) - WP(C) No. 9943 of 2004(H) [2006] RD-KL 182 (11 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 9943 of 2004(H)

1. VENUGOPAL. E., LINEMAN GRADE I,
... Petitioner

2. SURESH KUMAR. R.S., LINEMAN GRADE I,

3. BIJUMON. C., LINEMAN GRADE I,

4. REJI P.P., LINEMAN GRADE I,

Vs

1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION)
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :11/07/2006

O R D E R

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 9943 OF 2004

Dated this the 11th day of July, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioners are Lineman Grade I in the Electrical Wing of the Kerala Public Works Department. They have approached this Court aggrieved by the seniority lists published by the first respondent and also on the ground of rejection of their claim.

2. The method of appointment to the post of Lineman Grade I is by direct recruitment and by promotion from the post of Lineman Grade II. As per Government Order, G.O.(P)3000/98/Fin dated 25.11.1998, the cadre of Lineman Grade I and Lineman Grade II were merged together with effect from 1.3.1997 in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-5230/-. Thereafter Ext.P7 provisional gradation list of lineman as on 1.3.1997 was published on 23.9.2002. Subsequently, by Ext.P8, the seniority list was revised and the petitioners who were appointed to the post of Lineman Grade I by direct recruitment were placed as serial numbers 23 to 26. According to the petitioners, their names should have been shown above the persons who were Lineman Grade II and the first petitioner filed W.P.(C)NO.9943/2004 2 Ext.P9 objection. Similar objections were filed by the other petitioners also. As the objections filed by the petitioners were not considered, they filed O.P.No.10536 of 2003 and this Court as per Ext.P15 judgment dated 28.3.2003 directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the objections filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, as per Ext.P16 order, the first respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Lineman Grade I by direct recruitment and hence to place them below Lineman Grade II in the seniority list is irregular and illegal. Counsel further submits that the next promotion is to the post of Overseer Grade II which is filled up by promotion from the post of Lineman Grade I on the basis of seniority.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of the first respondent. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that some discrepancies have been noticed in the seniority lists of lineman published for the period from 1.11.1993 to 31.3.98 and for the period from 2.3.1997 to 31.10.2002. W.P.(C)NO.9943/2004 3

5. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Lineman Grade I. The persons who were listed above the petitioners were actually working as Lineman Grade II prior to 1.3.1997. If that be so, the petitioners are entitled to be placed above the persons who were working as Lineman Grade II. Further, seniority in the post of Lineman Grade I is the basis for the next higher promotion. In the above circumstances, Ext.P16 is not justifiable and it is liable to be quashed. Ext.P16 is accordingly quashed and the first respondent is directed to consider the issue and pass appropriate orders within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is reported that petitioners 1 and 3 have left the service and hence, the request of petitioners 2 and 4 alone need be considered. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/ W.P.(C)NO.9943/2004 4

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.9943/2004

JUDGMENT

11TH JULY, 2006 W.P.(C)NO.9943/2004 5


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.