Introduction:

1. In all the writ petitions similar issues have been raised by identically placed employees against their common employer, the Kerala Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). As such, it is felt desirable to dispose of all the writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, the facts as pleaded in W.P.(C) No.7813/2014 have been taken as the basis, apart from referring to the petitioner therein alone as representing the cause of all the petitioners in other writ petitions as well. Factual Matrix:

2. To begin with, the factual matrix runs in a narrow compass. The petitioner, a conductor in the respondent Corporation, initially secured his employment on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) with a rank of 3002. After completing his probation, the petitioner availed himself of Leave Without Allowance (LWA) with effect from 15.11.2008 to 06.10.2010 for the purpose of securing employment abroad. Later, he rejoined duty on 07.10.2010.

3. After his rejoining, when the petitioner was hopeful that he had been back in the mainstream of the service and that he would be provided timely promotion, much to his dismay, the respondent Corporation altered his seniority from 3002 to 3847-A through Exhibit P4. Further, the petitioner has found that, after his rejoining, many of his juniors have been promoted to the higher cadre. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. In all other writ petitions as well, the petitioners being the permanent employees of the respondent Corporation availed themselves of LWA and rejoined duty only to find that they had been superseded in promotional avenues by their juniors, consequent to the reduction of their ranks in the seniority.

Rival contentions:

Petitioners:

5. At the outset, Mr. Justine K.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that petitioner has been sanctioned leave and that, so long as it is not unauthorised, absence of the petitioners from service cannot have any adverse impact on their career prospects, especially seniority.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Appendix XII-A, Part I of Kerala Service Rues (KSR) has been adopted by the respondent Corporation, as is evident from Exhibit P5, dated 21.08.1984. The learned counsel, however, fairly concedes that the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted during the period of his absence, and the seniority of all those who got promoted when the petitioner was on leave is not affected. Once the petitioner resumed duty, the embargo placed on the reckoning of his seniority, submits the learned counsel, ceased to operate. As to the applicability of 'dies non', the learned counsel contends that it only disentitles the petitioner to service benefits during his absence, but it does not, by no stretch of imagination, obliterates his seniority. He has, in fact, drawn my attention to Rule 9 of the Grade Promotion Rules of 1987 to stress that the period of dies non will not impair seniority.

7. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners' original rank and seniority are governed by Rule 27(c) Part II of KS & SSR. With reference to the said Rule he contends that the original seniority and rank of an employee acquired at the time of his entry into service cannot be reduced except by way of punishment. Ipso facto, he contends that, since the petitioner has not faced any disciplinary proceedings, Exhibit P4 order is clearly unsustainable.

8. The learned counsel has further contended that, after the petitioner rejoined the duty, the Corporation has promoted several of his juniors, thereby ignoring the petitioner's claim. The learned counsel contends that grade promotion is entirely different from cadre promotion.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a plethora of precedents, which shall be referred to at an appropriate stage of the discussion.

Respondents:

10. Dr. Thushara James, the learned Stand