In the absence of specific rules, seniority is determined by length of service, reinforcing principles of fair administrative action and equality.

JUDGMENT :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958 assails the judgment dated 05.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.24477/2017-H whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Foreman Grade-II in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) on 24.04.1995 on the advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Subsequently, on 11.08.2000, the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) signed a long-term settlement with two recognized trade i.e unions, ., the Kerala State Electricity Board Workers Association and the Kerala Electricity Workers Federation, which provided for revision of pay and allowances and other service conditions of the workmen of the KSEB. According to Clause 5 of Article VII, Staff Pattern, B – Executive Staff, the posts of Foreman (Civil) and Sub Engineer (Civil) were merged effective from 29.08.2000. All Foreman (Civil) appointed through the Kerala Public Service Commission were to be integrated with Sub Engineers (Civil), and the post of Foreman (Civil) was abolished from the date of the settlement.

2.1 All five Foremen (Civil) were integrated as Sub Engineer (Civil) with effect from 29.08.2000. As per Ext.P2 it was ordered that the five Foreman (Civil) integrated with the cadre of Sub Engineer (Civil) would be placed junior to the junior-most Sub Engineer (Civil), Sri R. Renjith, who was appointed as per Board Order dated 22.05.2000.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant submitted a representation (Ext.P3), requesting that his service be reckoned from the date he i.e. entered service, , with effect from 24.04.1995, since, as per Ext.P2, he would otherwise be considered junior even to a person appointed in the year 2000. Due to inaction on the representation, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.33596/2010. This Court disposed of the W.P.(C) No.33596/2010 directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the directions passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharam Pal and others [ (2009) 4 SCC 170 ]

3.1 The Chief Engineer/the 2^nd respondent rejected the representation, stating that the post of Foreman (Civil) did not have any promotional avenues, even though the scale of pay and the prescribed qualifications for both Foreman (Civil) and Sub Engineer (Civil) were identical. It was further stated that, prior to the integration, the two cadres were entirely different, with separate channels for recruitment, promotion, and other service conditions. The cadre of Foreman (Civil) was not re-designated but integrated with the cadre of Sub Engineer (Civil) with effect from 29.08.2000, on the ground that it would be unfair to disturb the settled seniority of the other existing Sub Engineers owing to the integration. Furthermore, the decision to integrate was taken by the KSEB taking into consideration the lack of further promotional prospects for Foremen (Civil). Therefore, even though the scale of pay of both the cadres and the qualification prescribed for the posts were similar or identical, seniority in the cadre of Sub Engineer (Civil) cannot be assigned to the appellant with effect from the date of his joining as Foreman (Civil).

4. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred W.P.(C) No.24477/2017-H before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after considering the pleadings and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, concluded that there is no specific provision in the settlement stating that the integration would take effect from the appellant’s original appointment date or that seniority upon integration would be reckoned from the date of entry into service as Foreman (Civil). Therefore, the appellant has no valid claim to have his service as Foreman (Civil) counted for seniority purposes. The learned Single Judge further noted that allowing such a claim woul