Dismissed

M.K.Kunhjhol v. P.T.Chacko @ Girish Raj,& Others

Kerala HC23 Nov 2011WP(C)/8091/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged verification of caste status of retired employee accused of fraud. Court noted scrutiny committee upheld employee's claim. Writ dismissed for lack of petitioner's locus standi as third party and absence of evidence justifying directions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissing the petitioner's prayer for verification of caste status and legal action against the employee.

M.K.Kunhjhol Vs P.T.Chacko @ Girish Raj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 8091 of 2011(J)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

M.K.KUNHJHOL, FOUNDER LEADER AND MEMBER, KERALA STATE HARIJAN SAMAJAM (KSHS), HEAD QUARTERS, DAIVAJANA RAJADHANY (MINITTIL BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA SANNIDHANAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.U.ZIYAD.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. P.T.CHACKO @ GIRISH RAJ, CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, M.G.ROAD, ERENAKULAM - 682 011.

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO SC/ST DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶14

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE SC/ST COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶15

4. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 87, M.G.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN, R2 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LALY VINCENT.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.8091/2011-J:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S SSLC BOOK.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 12/08/1975.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 16/09/2009 OF THE R.4.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11/06/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE HARIJAN SAMAJAM.

¶25

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 02/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE HARIJAN SAMAJAM.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶27

EXT.R1.A: CJM., ERNAKULAM DISMISSAL ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO. 4490/09 DTD. 26/08/09 WITH PROCEEDINGS.

¶28

EXT.R1.B: CERTIFICATE NO.105394 DTD. 04/11/1972 ISSUED BY KERALA HINDUMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

EXT.R1.C: KERALA GAZETTE PART IV DTD. 12/08/1975.

¶30

EXT.R1.D: CERTIFICATE DTD. 05/12/1975 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶31

EXT.R1.E: CERTIFICATE DTD. 21/02/2011 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, KSS., BR. ETTUMANOOR.

¶32

EXT.R1.F: STAR PERFORMING LETTER DTD. 07/05/09 AND INCENTIVE SCHEME FOR BEST PERFORMING LETTER DTD. 10/10/2007 ISSUED BY G.M., NIA CO. LTD.,

¶33

EXT.R1.G: LETTER DTD. 19/06/2008 INTERVIEW FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF DGM.

¶34

EXT.R1.H: ANONYMOUS LETTER DTD. NIL. ISSUED BY BHOOLANDEVIPADA.

¶35

EXT.R1.I: ORDER DTD. 14/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶36

EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED TO THE DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DTD. 29/05/2009.

¶37

EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN R.2. AND THE R.4. DTD. 19/10/2009.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 8091 of 2011 J

¶44

¶45

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2011

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶48

First respondent was an employee of the New India Assurance Company and he retired from service as Chief Regional Manager. He was appointed in a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates and claimed the benefits on that basis. It appears that somebody had made a complaint to the Company doubting the caste status of the first respondent. The company had thereupon issued Ext.P3 communication to the second respondent, requesting for verification of the caste status of the first respondent, whose name is shown as Girish Raj. It was at that stage, complaining that there was no progress in the matter, the petitioner, who claims to be the founder leader and member of an organisation by name Kerala State Harijan Samajam, has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶49

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or

¶50

W.P.(C) No.8091/2011

¶51

: 2 :

¶52

any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the second respondent to take initiative in the light of Ext.P3, without any further delay, so as to enable the fourth respondent authority to take appropriate action against the first respondent.

¶53

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take appropriate legal action against the first respondent for the fraud committed by him.”

¶54

Along with I.A.No.15946/2011, first respondent has

¶55

produced the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, which shows that, based on a report submitted by the KIRTADS, the Scrutiny Committee considered the claim of the caste status of the first respondent and held that the allegations against him are unsustainable. In other words, the Scrutiny Committee has upheld the claim of the first respondent as a Scheduled Caste, based on the report of the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS. The company has also filed an affidavit that in the light of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, they are

¶56

W.P.(C) No.8091/2011

¶57

: 3 :

¶58

awaiting the termination of this writ petition for release of the terminal benefits due to the first respondent .

¶59

As at present, nothing is available before this Court to doubt the caste status of the first respondent. Therefore, the directions sought in the writ petition have to be declined. That apart, it is the settled position of law that in service matters, there is no place for a third party nor is any Public Interest Litigation maintainable. Petitioner admittedly is a third party and in view of the above, he has no locus standi in the matter.

¶60

Therefore, for want of locus standi to the petitioner and also due to absence of any documents justifying the directions sought, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶61

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶62

aks/23/11

¶63

// True Copy //

¶64

P.A. To Judge

M.K.Kunhjhol v. P.T.Chacko @ Girish Raj,& Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Kunhjhol v. P.T.Chacko @ Girish Raj,& Others

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.a.Ashraf Vs Ajith Patel

Joshua Daniel Vs Sajan Peter

Sabari Vinayak Vs R.Sundaram

Venkitangu Farmers Service Co-Op.Bank Lt Vs Shanmughanarayanan

Rasheed Vs the Regional Joint Labour.Comm. & Others

Raji Vs the Secretary,R.T.a,Pathanamthitta & Ors.