IMPORTANT POINTS
As per the rules laid down in the G.O. (P)No.3000/98/Fin dated 25.11.98 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, which ever is earlier will be granted. Thus the incumbent is eligible for 2nd higher grade in the scale of pay 4000-7125 with effect from 23.3.99.

JUDGMENT :

Arun, J.

The State and its officials have filed this original petition, aggrieved by the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 4385 of 2012 allowing the transferred application, finding the applicant/first respondent herein to be eligible for second higher grade benefit from 23.3.1991, on completion of eight years of service in the promoted post of Upper Division Clerk.

2. An encapsulation of facts, as narrated in the original petition, with reference to the parties and documents as in the transferred application, is as under:

The applicant had commenced her service as Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Department on 1.3.1988. On 27.6.1996 she was promoted as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 20.5.1996 and her pay was fixed accordingly. On 12.8.1996 Exhibit P2 proceedings was issued granting retrospective promotion to the applicant as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 23.3.1991. Thereafter, by Exhibit P3 proceedings dated 6.3.2006, the applicant was granted grade promotion to the scale of Rs.4600-7125 with effect from 23.3.1991. The grade promotion was granted on completion of eight years of service in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk, reckoning the applicant's date of promotion as 23.3.1991. The arrears due to the applicant consequent to such re-fixation were also disbursed.

3. As per Exhibit P4, audit objection was raised against counting of applicant's service as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 23.3.1991 for the purpose of granting grade promotion. According to the audit team, the applicant's service from 20.5.1996 alone should have been reckoned, since the retrospective promotion with effect from 23.3.1991 was notional promotion, which cannot be taken into account for the purpose of granting grade promotion. Exhibit P5 reply was given to the audit objection stating that as per Rule 23(c) of Part-I KSR, prior to its amendment by G.O(P)83/07/Fin. dated 1.3.2007, promotions which did not involve change of duties shall have effect from the date of the vacancy which occasioned the promotion. It was explained that though the 1st respondent was originally promoted as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 20.5.1996, the Department later realised that in accordance with the ratio 1:1 between LD and UD Clerks, few more posts of LD Clerks had to be upgraded retrospectively. That, on the basis of qualification and seniority, the applicant was entitled for promotion as UD Clerk with retrospective effect from 23.3.1991 and the same was granted under Exhibit P2. It was submitted that the administrative delay in granting timely promotion should not be taken as a reason to deny eligible benefit to the applicant. The explanation was rejected and Exhibits P6 and P7 proceedings issued, proposing recovery of the amounts alleged to have been received in excess by the applicant, based on the wrong fixation of her date of promotion. By Exhibit P10 direction was issued to recover the excess pay granted to the applicant. The proceedings for recovery was challenged in W.P(C).No.37230 of 2009 and pending the writ petition Exhibit P11 letter was issued informing that after detailed examination of the case, objection against irregular grant of higher grade is dropped. Since the proceedings against her was based on the audit objection, dropped as per Exhibit P11, the applicant withdrew W.P(C).No.37230 of 2009, without prejudice to her right to approach the court, in the event of there being any change in the decision communicated under Exhibit P11. By Exhibit P13, the applicant was informed that the period of retrospective/notional promotion cannot be reckoned as qualifying service in the promoted post for the purpose of granting time bound higher grade promotions and that the position had been upheld by this Court in the judgment in W.A.No.759 of 2007. The transferred application was thereupon filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Quash Exhibit P6 issued by the 3rd respondent, Exhibit P7 order