Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 21 (KER)

Raveendran Nadar v. Kerala Water Authority

2002-01-11

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

body2002
Judgment :- K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seriously aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to grant him the second higher grade on completion of total 18 years of service in the Water Authority. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the Water Authority as First Grade Draughtsman on 28.2.1983. On completion of 10 years service, he was granted the first higher grade on 28.2.1993. Later he was recruited through the P.S.C. in the in service quota and was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 28.8.1993. He completed total 18 years service in the Water Authority on 28.2.2001. The point to be decided is whether he is eligible for counting his entire service for the purpose of getting the next higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to the Assistant Executive Engineer. Ext. PI contains the relevant order governing the grant of second higher grade. The entry post is defined in paragraph 11 of Ext. PI as the post to which an employee is initially appointed in Government Service by direct recruitment by the competent authority. 3. The Rule regarding grant of 18 years higher grade reads as follows: "The second higher grade on completion of either 8 years of service in the first promoted post or a total service of 18 years in the entry post and the first regular promotion post/time bound higher grade together, whichever is earlier". The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the case of the petitioner, the entry post is wrongly taken as that of Assistant Engineer. The second contention is that since he has been appointed as Assistant Engineer directly, it is wrongly insisted that, he must complete 10 years service in that post to get the second higher grade. Going by the plain meaning of the words used to define entry post, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that his entry post is that of First Grade Draughtsman. In the second part of Rule regarding grant of 18 years higher grade quoted above, it is provided that, 18 years service can be in the entry post and in the first regular promotion post taken together. The post of Assistant Engineer is the first regular promotion post of First Grade Draughtsman, though he reached there by some other method. In the second part of Rule regarding grant of 18 years higher grade quoted above, it is provided that, 18 years service can be in the entry post and in the first regular promotion post taken together. The post of Assistant Engineer is the first regular promotion post of First Grade Draughtsman, though he reached there by some other method. But the method of appointment to that post is not relevant for the purpose of this benefit because the service in the first regular promotion post alone is mentioned. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he has completed 10 years service in the entry post and has completed about another 8 years service in the first regular promotion post of Assistant Engineer. When these services are taken together, he has completed 18 years service on 28.2.2001. 4. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that the court will adopt that interpretation which is just reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of these things. (See the observations of Finnermore, J. in Holmes v. Bradfield Rural District Court (1949 (1) ALLER 381 and of Ray CJ in Nasiruddin v. S.T.A.T. (1975 (2) SCC 33). If the contention of the Water Authority is accepted, the petitioner's junior who continued as First Grade Draughtsman by virtue of his lack of qualification or because of his failure in the PSC test on completion of 18 years service will be drawing scale of pay of Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas, the petitioner, who by virtue of his superior merit got appointment as Assistant Engineer will be drawing only the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer on completion of 18 years service. Thus his junior with inferior merit will be drawing the scale of pay of petitioner's promotion post, whereas, the petitioner will have to be content with the scale of pay of lower post. It cannot be presumed that the Rule making authority has intended to generate such injustice. The presumption is otherwise. So, I declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the second higher grade on completion of 18 years of total service in the posts of First Grade Draughtsman and Assistant Engineer taken together. The Original Petition is allowed as above.