Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
RESMI K.C – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47946 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.PRASANTH, SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR, SMT.MALAVIKA K., SMT.UNNIMAYA T.P.
For the Respondents: SRI. B. PREMOD
A delay in issuing a certificate does not extinguish eligibility rights for seniority; appropriate administrative processes should be followed to address grievances.
Headnote:The petitioner, working as Senior Assistant at KSEB, claims seniority denied due to delay by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The Court adjudicates that the matter should be addressed by the 2nd respondent, directing consideration of the petitioner's representation within two months. The primary issues framed include the delay and necessity for redressal, with the court noting it is advisable to hear affected parties before making a final decision. The court concluded that a timely decision should be taken regarding the petitioner's grievance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for seniority based on eligibility. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding stale claims and effects on others. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. direction to consider representation and hear affected parties. (Para 6) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025 The petitioner states that she is working as Senior Assistant at the Electrical Division, Irinjalakuda. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of seniority from the date her juniors were promoted overlooking the eligibility of the petitioner for the sole reasons that there was delay in issuing a certificate by the Kerala Public Service Commission.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner took up the issue in the year 2017 by filing a representation. However, no action was taken. The representation was followed up by Ext.P7. Still, the petitioner's grievance remains unredressed.
3. The petitioner states that unless the petitioner's seniority is restored, the petitioner will be put to difficulties as it affect her promotional avenues.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
5. Standing Counsel representing the respondents submitted that the petitioner is raking up a stale claim which the petitioner ought to have agitated in the year 2017. The grant of relief to the petitioner at this stage may unsettled the seniority of others.
6. Be that as it may, these are all matters which can be considered by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has already approached the 2nd respondent filing Ext.P7 representation.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation filed by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of two months, if necessary, after hearing the affected parties.
