KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus MR. SARATCHANDRAN P. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 18-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 13 S.C.R: 688 
A 
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
v. 
MR. SARATCHANDRAN P. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5813 of 2998) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 
[S. B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14 - HELD: Equality under Article 14 is a positive 
c concept- Its provisions cannot be invoked only because some 
illegality has been committed by an employer as a result 
whereof some employee has obtained benefit - Constitutional 
scheme of equality clause would apply only in a case where 
the parties are similarly situated - No equity can be claimed 
D on the basis of an illegality - Service Law. 
Kera/a State Electricity Board (Integration of Board Sec-
retariat establishment and general Establishment) Regula-
tions, 1981: 
E 
Regulation 5(c) - Seniority - Employee in the General 
Establishment claiming seniority and promotion from the date 
two of his juniors were promoted in Secretariat Establishment -
HELD: It is now a well settled principle of law that only because 
by mason of 'fortuitous' circumstances an employee who is jun-
F ior to another obtains some benefit to which he is ultimately not 
t 
found to be entitled, that by itself may not be a ground to confer 
the same benefit upon senior employee - A separate service 
known as 'Board Secretariat Service' was formed - In imple-
mentation of judgment of the Court, although, claimant would 
G rank as senior to the employees who joined Board Secretariat 
Service, the same would not mean that he would be entitled to 
promotion with retrospective effect - The employees junior to 
the claimant obtained out of turn promotion which ultimately 
.., 
was found to be illegal - It is not the case of claimant that he 
H 
688 
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. MR. 
689 
SARATCHANDRAN P. & ANR. 
was unjustly denied promotion - It is also not his case that he · A 
had suffered any pecuniary loss or any other prejudice - The 
claimant was not entitled to promotion with retrospective effect. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5813 
of 2008 
B 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2005 of 
the High Court of Kera la at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1622 of 2005 
M.T. George for the Appellant. 
K. Rajeev for the Respondents. 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
Leave granted. 
1. The Kerala State Electricity Board constituted and in-
corporated under the Electricity(Supply) Act, 1948 is before us D 
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 
14.12.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High 
Court in Writ Appeal No. 1622/2005 modifying the judgment 
and order dated 2.3.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of 
the said Court in O.P. No.26092/1999 allowing the petition filed 
E 
by the respondent No.1 herein. 
2. Kerala State Electricity Board since its inception in the 
year 1957 was having two categories of services; (i) Ministerial 
Service and (ii) Executive Service. 
F 
3. On or about 1.4.1964, however, a separate services 
known as 'Board Secretariat Service' was constituted in terms 
whereof those employees who had been working were given a 
right of option with a lien to the parent wing to opt therefor. Indis-
putably, whereas the respon·dent No.1 was appointed as a Lower · G 
Division Clerk on 11.5.1962, L. Radhadevi was appointed on 
28.1.1963 and S. G.Rajappan was appointed on 11.3.1968. It 
is not in controversy that whereas the said L.Radhadevi , S.G. 
Rajjappan opted for the Board Secretariat services, the first 
respondent continued to work in the general establishment. 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
4. It is also not in dispute that by reason of their postings in 
the Board Secretariat Service the said S.G.Rajappan and 
L.Radhadevi were promoted as Senior Superintendent on or 
about 31. 7 .1979 and 17 .3.1977 respectively, whereas the first 
respondent was promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent 
s on 9.11.1979; in the post of Superintendent on 1.8.1986 and on 
the post of Senior Superintendent on 14.7.1987. 
5. It is also not in dispute that in the Board Secretariat 
Service, there was no post of Senior Supreintendent. Whereas 
S.G.Rajappan was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts 
C Officer on 21.1.1984 and L. Radhadevi was promoted to the 
post of Assistant Accounts Officer on 3.3.1983, the first respon-
dent was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer on 23.12.1992 
only. We may also notice that S.G.Rajappan was appointed to 
the post of Accounts Offic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.