K.V.AJITH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.2.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.29622 of 2011, whereby, the writ petition filed by him was dismissed.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short, the 'Board') at length and with their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

(3.) The facts are not in dispute. The appellant was a lineman under the Board. Three years' prior to his superannuation, he was temporarily promoted to the post of Cashier with a clear stipulation that he must clear the departmental examination for this purpose or else he would be reverted. He was also asked to give Ext.P2 undertaking as per the promotion order, clearly stating that the temporary appointment gives him only a right to draw pay in the scale of Junior Assistant/Cashier "during the period that I am holding that post". The promotion order also had clause 12, which clearly stated that where temporary appointments were made and subsequent reversions are effected, a person would be entitled to pay fixation at the normal scales and would not be eligible for pay protection or pay receipt in the temporary post of Cashier. The writ petitioner/appellant was so promoted/appointed on 24.8.2007 and continued to work as temporary cashier till 30.11.2010. It is not disputed that he did not clear the departmental examination. He superannuated while working as a temporary cashier. When his retiral dues were calculated, there was an objection. The objection was that since he had not passed the departmental examination, he would not be entitled to remuneration for the temporary post held by him and hence, the same had to be recovered. His retiral dues were calculated on the basis of his reverted position. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed and consequently recovery was also effected. It is not in dispute that the impugned order had significant adverse civil consequences. If recovery of money from his retiral dues was effected, the same will down grade his pensionary benefits. No opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner/appellant to explanation or defend himself. On the above facts, writ petition was filed assailing the actions of the Board. The learned Single Judge did not go into the question of violation of principles of natural justice, but, decided the writ petition on merits and dismissed the same.