S. Siri Jagan, J.@mdashThe petitioners are employees of the Kerala Kera Karshaka Sahakarana Federation Ltd. (KERAFED). They filed this writ petition at a time when they were still Senior Accountants/Accountants in the KERAFED seeking promotion as Office Manager/Junior Manager as also for further promotion as Assistant Manager on completion of 7 years of service in the post of Office Manager/Junior Manager. The promotion to the post of Office Manager/Junior Manager is no longer an issue, in so far as in the available 4 vacancies by Ext.R1(a) four of the petitioners have been promoted with effect from the date from which promotion was due to them. But monetary benefits were limited from the date when they assumed charge in the promoted post. As far as the other petitioners are concerned, vacancies would arise only when these persons promoted were Ext.R1(a) are given further promotion. Therefore, the only question to be consider now is whether petitioners 1 to 4 are further entitled to be promoted as Assistant Manager. The contention of the petitioners is that as per Ext.P1 staff pattern and Service Rules, Office Manager/Junior Manager is entitled to promotion as Assistant Manager after the completion of 7 years of service. Since petitioners 1 to 4 have been promoted as Junior Manager with effect from 17.4.1996, 4.5.1996, 11.5.1996 and 15.12.1996, they acquired the qualification for promotion as Assistant Managers long back and, therefore, there is no justification in not promoting them as Assistant Managers is the contention raised. A further contention raised is that once petitioners 1 to 4 are promoted as Assistant Managers, the other petitioners are entitled to be promoted as Office managers/Junior Managers.
2. It is admitted now that petitioners 1 to 4 have been given higher grade in the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Manager, since they have completed the service required for higher grade. The contention of the petitioners is that even then since vacancies of Assistant Manager are existing they are entitled to be promoted to the existing regular vacancies.
3. Two counter affidavits has been filed by the first respondent. In the counter affidavit filed on 17.5.2010, the stand taken is that the 1st respondent is in the process of restructuring their staff pattern, in view of the fact that the 1st respondent has been brought under the purview of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Societies), Act 1996. Proposals in that regard have been forwarded to the Registrar of Corporative Societies, Government and Public Service Commission for approval, which have not been finalised. According to them, if approved, there would be rearrangement of posts available. It is submitted before me that pending finalisation of restructuring process, it has been decided by the 1st respondent not to effect any promotions. The counsel for the 1st respondent asserts that no promotions in any category in the service of the 1st respondent is being made at present pending finalisation of the restructuring process after obtaining sanction from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Government and Public Service Commission. He assures the Court that as and when the 1st respondent decides to make promotions to any post in the establishment, the petitioner''s claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and post of Office Manager/Junior Manager would be considered appropriately.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending finalisation of the restructuring process, in so far as, approved staff pattern and promotion policy are existing in the form of Ext.P1, there is no justification in not making promotions in accordance with Ext.P1.
5. It is not a secret that the KERAFED is experiencing severe financial crunch. As such when the restructuring process is in progress and the 1st respondent has decided not to make any promotions in any category in the meanwhile, I do not think that, it is the interest of the institution to direct promotions in accordance with Ext.P1. The petitioners cannot claim consideration of their claim for promotion unless the refusal of promotions is arbitrary. In the present case, I do not think that the refusal of promotion is arbitrary, in so far as, they have decided not to make any promotion to any posts till the restructuring process is complete. Apart from that the petitioners 1 to 4 have been granted higher grade in the respective posts as applicable, in the scale of pay of the promoted posts. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that, as and when the 1st respondent decides to make promotions to any category in the 1st respondent, a claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager/Junior manager shall be considered appropriately.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have other claims regarding monetary benefits raising from grant of promotions, higher grade etc. Those claims are left open to be agitated by the petitioners before the 1st respondent appropriately.
