Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53963
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
SONA RAVIDAS – Appellant
Versus
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38782 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.M.M.DEEPA, SMT.SUDHA N., SMT.P.MAYA
For the Respondents: SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SMT.PRINCY XAVIER
The Court ruled that service in the initial and promotional posts should collectively count towards higher grades under specific conditions, aligning with previous judgments.
Headnote:The petitioner, a retired Technical Assistant under the Kerala Water Authority, challenges the denial of her higher grades based on Audit Department objections. Reviewing prior case law, the Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for the purpose of receiving additional higher grades. The Court quashes the prior decision and mandates the respondents to grant due pension as per applicable provisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for higher grades based on service duration. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. clarification on the implications of audit department's objections. (Para 6) |
| 3. reference to prior judgments on promotional eligibility. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final decision allowing the petitioner's request. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2025 The petitioner, who is retired as Technical Assistant /
Assistant Executive Engineer under the Kerala Water Authority is aggrieved by the denial of due Higher Grades admissible to her.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the Kerala Water Authority as Draughtsman Grade-I on 25.09.1996. As per the Scheme of grant of Higher Grade, the petitioner was entitled to get the 1st Higher Grade after completion of 10 years. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted 1st Higher Grade on
25.09.2006, while working in the post of Draughtsman Grade-II.
3. The petitioner states that subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer under the service quota. The petitioner was later given 2nd Higher Grade (15 years) with effect from 01.01.2012 and 3rd Higher Grade (22 years) with effect from 25.09.2018. The Audit Department raised objections in respect of grant of the 2nd and 3rd Higher Grades to the petitioner. The Audit Department took a view that the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer was on the advice of the PSC and under service quota. It should be taken as the entry post and the petitioner can aspire for further Higher Grade only on completion of another 10 years in that post. It is the said stand of the respondents which is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. Standing Counsel pointed out that in Ext.R1(c)
communication received from the Government of Kerala, it was specifically stated that the petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman and 1st time bound Higher Grade was sanctioned on completion of 10 years. As the petitioner was provisionally appointed as Assistant Engineer thereafter under in-service quota through PSC, the Assistant Engineer post became her entry post and further Higher Grade to be granted to the petitioner should be with reference to the said appointment as Assistant Engineer.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Relying on Ext.R1(a), the Standing Counsel submitted that in all cases of appointments by Direct Recruitment either through PSC or through Employnent Exchange, the employee concerned will be granted time bound Higher Grade only on completion of the prescribed qualifying service in that post (vide G.O.(Ms) No.775/80/(245)/Fin dated 21.10.1980). As the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer directly through PSC, though under service quota, the said post should be treated as the entry post of the petitioner and therefore the audit objections are sustainable.
7. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the issue raised by the petitioner has been considered by this Court in Raveendran Nadar v. Kerala Water Authority [2002 (1) KLT 799] , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that in the entry post or in the first regular promotion post taken together, 18 years service can be included and that there is no relevance for the method of appointment to the first promotion.
8. I find that the judgment in Raveendran Nadar (supra) also related to promotion in Kerala Water Authority and is in identical facts situation. In the said case, the petitioner therein had joined in Kerala Water Authority as Draughtsman Grade-I and on completion of 10 years' service he was granted the 1st Higher Grade. Later, like the petitioner herein, he was recruited through the PSC against the in-service quota and was appointed as Assistant Engineer. The question which arose in the said case was that whether he is eligible for counting his entire service for the purpose of getting the next Higher Grade.
This Court held in favour of the petitioner therein.
9. The facts p
