Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
N. SURESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42116 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair
For the Respondents: P.K. Babu
Seniority in service must be determined based on higher cadre promotions and qualifications, not merely on entry date.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case involved a salary step-up claim based on seniority in service pursuant to judicial precedents. Facts: The petitioner, after obtaining a Ph.D., contended his promotions rendered him senior to a colleague despite their entry dates. The court previously ruled consideration for step-up must be based on cadre seniority. Findings: The court invalidated an order denying the claim and mandated reconsideration.
Issues: The court framed questions regarding seniority influenced by higher cadre promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: It emphasized that qualification alone could not define seniority.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and requiring a fresh review by the authority.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details the service entry and promotion chronology affecting salary step-up. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's position on seniority and evidence required for salary claim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. final ruling directing fresh consideration of the case. (Para 8) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered the service of KSM Devaswom Board College, Sasthamcotta, with a Ph.D. on 17.08.1992. One Dr. K. Santhosh had entered the service earlier, on 01.07.1992. Therefore, the petitioner was, in fact, junior to Dr. K. Santhosh at the time of entry. However, on account of the Ph.D. qualification obtained by the petitioner, he was placed on the Lecturer Senior Scale w.e.f. 17.08.1997, pursuant to Ext.P3. In contrast, Dr. K. Santhosh, who was actually senior to the petitioner in entry, was promoted and placed in the post of Lecturer Senior Scale w.e.f.
27.07.1998, pursuant to Ext.P4.
2. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted and placed as Lecturer Selection Grade on 17.08.2001, pursuant to Ext.P5, whereas Dr. K. Santhosh, the junior teacher in terms of higher cadre seniority, was promoted and placed as Lecturer Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.07.2002. The petitioner contends that, although Dr. K. Santhosh entered service earlier, by virtue of the subsequent promotions and developments, he is senior in service to Dr. K. Santhosh. However, Dr. K. Santhosh was receiving a higher salary due to increments. In such circumstances, the petitioner sought a step-up in salary corresponding to that received by Dr. K. Santhosh.
3. Initially, this claim was denied on the ground that Dr. K. Santhosh was senior at the entry level. This decision was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 22102 of 2022. By Ext.P10 judgment dated 02.08.2022, this Court held that the mere fact that the petitioner entered service after Dr. K. Santhosh cannot, by itself, determine seniority. If the petitioner is able to establish seniority with reference to higher cadre promotions, the claim for step-up must be considered.
Consequently, the matter was directed to be reconsidered.
4. Pursuant to this direction, the impugned order at Ext.P11 dated 15.12.2022 was issued. The order noted that the person claimed to be the petitioner’s junior (Dr. K. Santhosh) had actually joined service earlier. However, it observed that the Senior Scale and Selection Grade are time-bound higher grades, with no direct appointment or cadre-wise promotion to these grades, and consequently rejected the petitioner’s claim. The Court further notes that Ext.P11 also relied on G.O.(MS) No.
210/22/Fin dated 03.12.2022. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P11 issued as above that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.
5. I have heard Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnana Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. P.K. Babu, the learned Special Government Pleader (Finance).
6. At the outset, this Court may observe that the reference to G.O.(MS) No. 210/22/Fin dated 03.12.2022 is out of context, insofar as the petitioner has already pointed out that he possesses the same qualifications as the junior, Dr. K. Santhosh. This Court, in W.P.(C) No. 6652 of 2023 and connected cases, has already held that where the qualifications are identical, the afore Government Order need not be applied.
7. As regards the further consideration made in Ext.P11, this Court observes that, while issuing the judgment in Ext.P10, it was categorically held that if the petitioner is able to prove that he is senior in the higher cadre, the claim for step-up requires be accepted.
8. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 40082 of 2003, by judgment dated 29.09.2005, considered an almost identical situation and held that seniority must be reckoned with reference to the cadre in the Lecturer Selection Grade. The consideration reflected in Ext.P11 does not appear to be in tune with the mandate under Ext.P7. In my opinion, the matter requires a fresh consideration by the 3rd respondent.
In such circumst
