The court found that the failure to recognize prior service for pay benefits was arbitrary and ordered timely consideration of representations.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 The petitioners state that they are working as Senior Assistants / Cashier in the Kerala State Electricity Board. Petitioners 1 to 4 initially entered into service in the post of Office Attendant Grade-II with effect from 21.12.1994, 15.12.1994, 19.12.1994 and 19.12.1994 respectively, under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. Since there was no regular vacancies to appoint the petitioners, they were temporarily appointed as CLR workers. The petitioners were given increments and other service benefits with effect from the date of their appointment as CLR worker.

2. Later, audit objection was raised with respect to the payment of such benefits. The said matter was decided by a settlement in the year 2007 between the 1^st respondent and its employees. As per sub-clause 23 of Clause F of Article X of the Settlement Agreement, it was agreed that the actual period of CLR service with respect to the employees appointed under Compassionate Appointment Scheme will be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of increments, weightage and other service benefits. Even though in settlement agreement it is stated that the CLR service of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons will be reckoned for all service benefits, they were denied of the benefit of the same.

3. Aggrieved by the said denial, writ petitions were filed before this Court and this Court, as per Ext.P2 judgment, declared that the petitioners therein will be entitled to have their seniority reckoned from the date of initial appointment as CLR workers. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, the petitioners therein and the petitioners herein were granted promotion to the post of Cashier. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P5 order reckoning the seniority of the petitioners in Ext.P2 judgment from the date of their initial appointment as CLR worker and granting consequential pay fixation benefits.

4. Even though, the petitioners are also similarly situated as the petitioners in Ext.P2 judgment, they are denied reassignment of seniority and consequential pay refixation. Seeking the above benefit, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P7 to P10 representations before the 3^rd respondent. But, the 3^rd respondent has not so far considered the said representations. The non-consideration of Exts.P7 to P10 representations is causing great hardship and prejudice to the petitioners.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. The petitioners contend that the non re-

assigning of the petitioners' seniority and the non-fixation of the pay in the cadre of Senior Assistant / Cashier with effect from the date of their initial appointment as CLR workers is arbitrary and offends the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners.

7. Be that as it may, going through the pleadings, I find that the petitioners have preferred Exts.P7 to P10 representations in this regard before the 3^rd respondent. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 3^rd respondent considers the representations submitted by the petitioners and passes appropriate orders within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Exts.P7 to P10 representations submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month.

Sd/-