AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The Appellants are the Kerala State Electricity Board and its officers, who were the Respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition.
The case of the writ Petitioner was that she, having given appointment as Sweeper Grade III by virtue of Ext. P1 dated 14.11.1990, under the compassionate appointment scheme was entitled to have a category change as ''Electricity Worker'' and for consequential benefits in view of such posting given to the Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. The said Respondents were given similar appointment as Sweeper Grade III much later, but were accommodated as ''CLR workers'' for want of vacancy of Sweepers Grade III. As per Ext. P4 dated 10.12.2002 such persons like the Respondents 4 and 5 were regularised as Electricity Workers; which benefit in turn was claimed by the writ Petitioner as well.
The claim of the Petitioner was resisted by the Board stating that the benefits contemplated under Ext. P4 were with regard to the regularization of the CLR workers and that the same cannot be extended to the writ Petitioner. The facts and circumstances with reference to the pleadings on record were analysed by the learned Single Judge, who arrived at a specific finding that the course pursued by the Board in the case of the Petitioner is not in conformity with the principle of equality. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was entitled to get category change as ''Electricity Worker'' from the date of regularization of the Respondents 4 and 5 as Electricity Workers and directed to give all the benefits flowing therefrom; is under challenge in this appeal.
The learned Counsel appearing for the Board submits that the course pursued by the Board at the relevant point of time was quite in conformity with the Board Orders and requisite norms and it was after considering the qualification of the writ Petitioner that the Board decided to appoint the Petitioner as Sweeper Grade III in the year 1990 while the Respondents 4 and 5 were given similar appointment, in the year 1994. However, they were not given placement as Sweeper Grade III for want of necessary vacancies, and had to be accommodated as CLR workers/daily labourers. In the course of time, the Board found that the qualification prescribed for appointment as Electricity Workers ought to be varied and necessary changes were incorporated. It was in the said circumstance, that category change was ordered to the Respondents 4 and 5 by passing Ext. P4 order dated 10.12.2002. It is also stated that the said order is intended to extend the benefits to a particular class of persons like the Respondents 4 and 5, which is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner and as such, no interference ought to have been made by the learned Single Judge under any circumstance.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent as well (Respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition, were subsequently deleted from party array in appeal, by order dated 11.03.2010 in I.A. No. 202 of 2010).
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no case for the Respondent Board that the writ Petitioner was lesser qualified than the Respondents 4 and 5 and by virtue of the admitted factual position that the Petitioner who got a placement against a vacancy of Sweeper Grade III as early as in the year 1990 should not have been put to difficulty by virtue of the better placement or benefits given to Respondents 4 and 5 who were rather behind in the queue.
After going through the materials on record, particularly the terms of the Scheme and the undisputed factual position, we find that the Petitioner was standing much in front of the Respondents 4 and 5 and on substantiating her merit, she was given placement by the Respondent Board as per Ext. P1 in 1990. It is also an admitted/undisputed fact that the Respondents 4 and 5 happened to be given better benefits by virtue of Ext. P4 with effect from 10.12.02 pursuant to their regularization as ''Electricity Worker''.
In the above circumstances, we find that the interference made by the learned Single Judge directing the Board to give similar benefits to the Petitioner as well, with effect from the date of regularization of the Respondents 4 and 5 as Electricity Workers is perfectly within the four walls of law, which does not require any interference. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.