Allowed

T.L.Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jan 2008WP(C)/2788/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Kerala Water Authority to compute and disburse promotion benefits and consequential pensionary benefits to the petitioner as Operator, relying on the finality of an earlier judgment ordering implementation of the promotion.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent to pass orders computing and disbursing benefits due to the petitioner as Operator within three months, including pensionery benefits.

T.L.Jose Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2788 of 2006(F)

¶4

---------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

----------------------

¶7

T.L. JOSE, LINEMAN, WORKING AS OPERATOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER WORKS, CHOWARA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

------------------------

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, HEAD WORK SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, CHOWARA, VIA. ALWAYE.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.2788/2006 F

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1:	COPY OF ORDER DTD. 10/02/82 NO.A3-07/4448/80 ISSUED BY P.H.SECTION II, NORTH PARUR, HEAD WORKS SECTION, ALWAYE.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF ORDER NO.KWA/HO/LS.3/16692/86 DTD. 21/12/92 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.2885/92-R DTD. 3/08/98 IN THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.2130/91-C DTD. 3/08/98 IN THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14/09/98.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.1792/98.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

V.GIRI, J.

W.P.(C).No.2788 of 2006 F

¶26

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2008.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner entered the service as NMR worker in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department. He was absorbed into the service of the Water Authority, on the constitution of the Authority. By Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was included in the rank list for promotion as NMR Operator. By resolution dated 27.9.1990, the Water Authority resolved to promote certain persons including the petitioner as Operator with effect from 1.4.1984. Since the resolution was not given effect to, the petitioner had approached this court in W.P. (C)No.2130/91 and apparently, during the pendency of the writ petition, Ext.P2 came to be passed. In the meanwhile, certain operators had approached this court contending that persons, who are not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Operators/Head operators were appointed, in contravention of the Special Rules. This contention was considered in detail and negatived in Ext.P3 judgment. On the same day, by a separate

¶29

W.P.(C).NO.2788/06

¶30

:: 2 ::

¶31

judgment, this court had held that those persons who were reverted as operators, shall be re-promoted. Ext.P4 judgment is inter partes the petitioner and the Authority and it has become final. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the Managing Director seeking benefits consequential to Ext.P4 judgment.

¶32

Ext.P3 judgment, by which the writ petitions filed by other operators were dismissed, were carried in appeal before this court. The appeals were dismissed under Ext.P6 judgment, but with an observation that the Water Authority is bound to follow the Special Rules, unless otherwise ordered under authority of law. But the orders of promotion, which were stated to be consequential upon the regularisation given by the Government, were not interfered with and this aspect was specifically noted by the Division Bench. In spite of Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner has not been granted promotion as Operator with effect from the date noted in Ext.P2 and hence this writ petition.

¶33

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Water Authority, essentially contending that the

¶34

W.P.(C).NO.2788/06

¶35

:: 3 ::

¶36

petitioner was not qualified to be promoted as an Operator in terms of the Special Rules applicable to the Public Health Engineering service and therefore, the Water Authority ought not to have promoted him in terms of Ext.P2 and that subsequent to Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench, an order was passed by the Water Authority reversing all promotions effected till then. That thereafter 328 persons were regularised as operators after obtaining sanction from Government. But such promotions were given effect only from 21.10.2005.

¶37

I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the Water Authority.

¶38

In my view, Ext.P4 conclusively answers the issue raised by the petitioner. Though the promotion of persons similarly situated to that of the petitioner as operator had been challenged in a batch of writ petitions on the ground that such persons were not qualified in terms of the Special rules relating to Public Health Engineering service, this court had negatived the said contention in Ext.P3 judgment, which was not interfered with in Ext.P6 judgment. Contemporaneous to Ext.P4, the

¶39

W.P.(C).NO.2788/06

¶40

:: 4 ::

¶41

writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed by Ext.P4 declaring that the petitioner was entitled to promotion and further issuing a mandamus to the Water Authority to implement the orders of the court. In other words, the orders of promotion, as evidenced by Ext.P2, should be given effect to. Ext.P4 judgment, as stated above, has become final and it is, therefore, binding on the Water Authority. It is not the case of the Water Authority that the order passed by the Government sanctioning regularisation in relation to 328 persons includes the petitioner as well. Assuming that it is so, in my view, the said order cannot have the effect of taking away the benefits of the directions contained in Ext.P4.

¶42

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to pass orders computing and disbursing the benefits due to the petitioner as an Operator in terms of Ext.P2 order as directed in Ext.P4 judgment. The consequential benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on

¶43

W.P.(C).NO.2788/06

¶44

:: 5 ::

¶45

28.2.2008 . It is made clear that the pensionery benefits to be granted to the petitioner shall also reflect the above direction.

Sd/- (V.GIRI)

JUDGE

sk/

//true copy//

T.L.Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L.Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.K.Ayyappan Pillai Vs Secretary, Changanacherry Municipality

Usha.C.B Vs the Chairman, Kpsc

Sudheesh T.S Vs State of Kerala

M.D.Thressia Vs T.M.Manoharan and Another

The Cochin Port Trust,Willington Island Vs State of Kerala,Rep. by Chief Secretary

N.K. Rajan Vs State of Kerala & Others