Kerala High Court Sets Aside Single Judge’s Order | Holds Seniority After KSEB Cadre Merger Must Be Determined by Length of Service in Absence of Specific Rules
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that when cadres are merged and no specific rules exist to fix seniority, the length of uninterrupted service should guide the determination of seniority. Setting aside a previous decision by a single judge, the Bench directed the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to revise the seniority list for Sub Engineers (Civil) following the 2000 integration of the Foreman (Civil) cadre. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, the Court ordered that the appellant’s seniority be recognized from his initial appointment in 1995.
The dispute arose from the integration of the cadre of Foreman (Civil) with Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) under a long-term settlement executed on 11 August 2000 between the Board and two recognized trade unions. The settlement provided for pay revision, service conditions, and the merger of the two posts with effect from 29 August 2000. All Foremen (Civil), including the appellant, were integrated into the Sub Engineer (Civil) cadre and placed below the junior-most Sub Engineer as per a Board order dated 30 November 2000.
The appellant, who had entered service as a Foreman (Civil) on 24 April 1995, challenged this placement, contending that his seniority should be reckoned from his original date of appointment, as both posts had similar pay scales and qualifications. He claimed that placing him below a Sub Engineer appointed in 2000 was inequitable. His representations to the authorities were rejected, leading him to approach the High Court.
The appellant relied on decisions of the Supreme Court, including Union of India v. Dharam Pal and Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, which emphasized that, in the absence of specific rules after cadre integration, seniority should be determined by length of service.
The KSEB and its officials argued that the Foreman (Civil) cadre had been distinct, with limited promotional avenues, and that the merger was undertaken to address this lack of progression. They maintained that the settlement and subsequent orders required Foremen to be placed below existing Sub Engineers to preserve the latter’s seniority.
The principal statutory framework involved the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, under which the intra-court appeal was filed.
The Division Bench referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Nirmal Kumar Choudhary and others v. State of Bihar and others [1988 Supp SCC 107], which addressed seniority determination upon integration of cadres. The Court noted that in that case, the Supreme Court held: “It is a well-settled position in law that seniority would ordinarily depend upon length of service subject, of course, to rules holding the field.” The Bench also recorded the Apex Court’s observation that “in the absence of any other valid rule for determining inter se seniority of members belonging to the same service, the rule of continuous officiation or the length of service or the date of entering in service and continuous uninterrupted service thereafter would be valid and would satisfy the tests of Article 16.”
The Court further cited the conclusion in Nirmal Kumar Choudhary where the High Court had found the gradation list to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as it placed permanent incumbents below temporary ones despite earlier substantive appointments. The Supreme Court upheld the principle of length of service as the equitable test for determining seniority in the absence of governing rules.
Applying these principles, the Division Bench observed that there was no specific provision in the 2000 settlement prescribing how seniority was to be determined upon integration. It recorded: “On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that in the absence of any specific rules regarding the reckoning of seniority after integration, length of service is the appropriate criterion for determining seniority.” The Bench concluded that the Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant could not claim seniority from the date of his appointment as Foreman (Civil).
The Court also noted that the Chief Engineer was incorrect in stating that the absence of an express provision meant the appellant’s seniority should be placed below the junior-most Sub Engineer. The Bench held that such an interpretation disregarded binding precedent and principles of service jurisprudence.
The Bench recorded: “In view of the aforementioned discussions, we are unable to agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 05.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No.24477/2017-H is hereby set aside. As a consequence, Ext.P2 dated 30.11.2000 to the extent of directing the Foreman (Civil) to be placed as junior to the junior-most Sub Engineer (Civil) and Ext.P8 order rejecting the representation, are also set aside.”
“We are also of the opinion that the Chief Engineer was incorrect in stating that the appellant’s seniority should be placed below the junior-most due to the absence of any specific provision.” It directed that the respondents recast the seniority list and assign the appellant seniority in light of the Supreme Court’s judgement in Nirmal Kumar Choudhary.
The Court concluded by allowing the writ petition and disposing of all interlocutory applications relating to interim matters, with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri. Elvin Peter P.J. (Senior Advocate), Sri. K.R. Ganesh, Smt. N.R. Reesha, Smt. T.S. Likhitha
For the Respondents: Sri. M.K. Thankappan
Case Title: K.C. Dileep Kumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:70871
Case Number: WA No.928 of 2020
Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
