Dismissed

Alex M.Muricken v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2010WP(C)/15057/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, sons of deceased arrack workers, challenged rejection of applications for reserved employment vacancies. The reservation scheme required beneficiaries’ parents to have lost employment due to the arrack ban and to have perished (implying unnatural death) consequent thereto, requiring FIR/death certificates.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought by the petitioners were not granted as their cases did not fall within the scope of the Government Order.

Alex M.Muricken Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 15057 of 2010(F) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

ALEX M.MURICKAN, CHANDITHURUTHEL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

RENJUMON P.R., PULIKKUNNEL HOUSE, LAKKATTOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

PRAVEEN.S., ONIYAPPURATH HOUSE, ELANJI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

THE CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ARYASALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶16

THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B.NO.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE

¶18

COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 10.

¶19

/2/

¶20

SANUP P.O., PALAMPURAYIDATHIL VEEDU, POONJAR P.O., PANACHIPPARA, KOTTAYAM.

¶21

RATHISHKUMAR K.S., KEERIMATTATHIL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA EAST P.O., KIDANGOOR SOUTH, KOTTAYAM.

¶22

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDHKUMAR BABU SC SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHANDAS

¶23

SC FOR KSBC SRI. ELVIN PETER

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(C) NO.15057 OF 2010 (F)

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2010

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioners are sons of deceased arrack shop workers. Arrack shop workers lost their employment consequent on the imposition of ban in vending arrack in the State. Government issued Ext.P1 order reserving 25% of the daily wage employment vacancies arising under the 5^th respondent to the dependent sons of “arrack workers who had perished consequent on the loss of employment due to the ban on arrack in the State.”

¶32

Petitioners submit that in pursuance to Ext.P1, Ext.P2 notification was issued by the 3^rd respondent. They submitted Exts.P3 to P5 applications which were rejected by Exts.P8 to P10. In Exts.P8 to P10, two reasons are stated. One is that the arrack workers concerned had only natural death and the 2^nd is that they did not comply with the age requirements specified.

¶33

Petitioners contend that Ext.P12 is a list of 265 persons selected for extending the benefit of Ext.P1, where many persons have been included despite the fact that the arrack worker concerned did not have an unnatural death. They also state that the age limitation specified in Exts.P8 to P10 is also against

¶34

WPC.No.15057 /2010

¶35

:2 :

¶36

Exts.P1 and P2.

¶37

On the directions of this court, the 5^th respondent has filed a statement. In the statement the stand taken by the 5^th respondent is that the scheme is implemented for the benefit of dependents of who lost employment and had unnatural death. Ext.P1 is a scheme introduced by the Government of Kerala reserving 25% of post of daily waged employment vacancies in the 5^th respondent corporation. Scheme itself provides that the beneficiaries shall be the dependent sons of arrack workers who “had perished” on account of the introduction of the arrack ban in the state. FIR/death certificate of the deceased is also one of the documents which are required to be produced.

¶38

A reading of Ext.P1 gives the impression that the scheme is intended only for those dependents of those workers who had lost livelihoods consequent on the introduction of arrack ban. Second condition to be complied with is the production of FIR/death certificate. If this be the situation, admittedly the case of the petitioner do not come within the scope of Ext.P1 Government Order.

¶39

WPC.No.15057 /2010

¶40

:3 :

¶41

True, the counsel for the petitioner contended,

¶42

particularly with reference to the case of respondents 6 and 7 that, in Ext.P12 list there are several cases where persons have been included despite the fact that the arrack workers did not have an unnatural death. Even if it is so, that will only render the list illegal, but the petitioners cannot claim similar treatment and this court cannot issue such a direction to perpetuate an illegality already done.

¶43

Since the case of the petitioners is not coming within the

¶44

purview of Ext.P1, I am not persuaded to grant the reliefs.

¶45

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶46

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶47

vi/

Alex M.Muricken v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alex M.Muricken 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.T.Rajappan Vs K.S.R.T.C.

B.Binu Vs the Union of India

Vijayan K.J. Vs State of Kerala

S.Jayakumar Vs the Travancore Devaswam Board & 3 Others

Anshad.M.Khan Vs State and Others

Sosamma Punnan Vs Executive Director and Another