Dismissed

Kochu Cherukkan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2012WP(C)/2524/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed two writ petitions filed by displaced labourers of Kayamkulam Back Water Farm seeking employment under a scheme with NTPC. The court held that the scheme did not create an enforceable legal right and directed the petitioners to claim violations directly from contractors.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as they were found to have no merit since the petitioners had no legal right to make the demands claimed under the Scheme.

Kochu Cherukkan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/4TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2524 of 2006 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. KOCHU CHERUKKAN, VILAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL,

¶8

CHINGOLI P.O. KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. VASUDEVAN, MADHU BHAVANAM,

¶10

CHINGOLI P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. A.JANKI, THOOVASSERY, THEKKETHIL,

¶12

CHINGOLI P.O. KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

4. K.P.SATHEESH KUMAR, KALLUMOOTTIL HOUSE, MANNAR.

¶14

5. P.MOHANAN PILLAI, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE,

¶15

PATTOLI MARKET P.O. KAYAMKULAM.

¶16

6. N.CHITHRANGADAN,

¶17

EDAVANAKANDATHIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, KAYAMKULAM.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

SRI.C.S.SUNIL

SMT.C.G.PREETHA

SRI.M.PRAVEESH

RESPONDENT(S):

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

¶24

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (FARMS)

¶25

DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

2. THE NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION,

¶27

N.T.P.C. BHAWAN, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7 INSTITUTIONAL

¶28

AREA, NEW DELHI 110 003.

¶29

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM

¶30

COMBINED CYDE POWER PROJECT, CHOOLATHERUVU 690 506,

¶31

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶32

R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN

¶33

BY SMT.MADHUBEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 24559/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No. 2524 of 2006 (A)

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING THE REHABILITATION OF THE WORKERS AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT AND THE PROGRESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISIONS.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE RETRENCHMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SASIDHARAN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.681/2005 DATED 28/7/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPAD.
EXT.P4(A):	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.683/2005 DATED 30/7/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPAD.
EXT.P4(B):	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.684/2005 DATED 30/7/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPAD.
EXT.P4(C):	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST NO.685/2005 DATED 30/7/2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, HARIPAD.
RESPONDENT'	S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R3(A):	COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD 23/6/89 DATED 6/7/89.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 2524 of 2006 -A & 24559 of 2009- L

¶45

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2012

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

Both these writ petitions relate to the very same subject matter and therefore the same are disposed by way of a common judgment.

¶48

Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2524/2006 claim that they were displaced labourers of Kayamkulam Back Water Farm and while those lands were acquired, NTPC proposed a Scheme by which the displaced labourers of the farm had to be given employment in the NTPC project. The complaint is that though such a scheme was in force, no action has been taken by the respondents to implement the said Scheme and in that view of the matter, petitioners were unable to get necessary employment.

¶49

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 24559/2009 is a similarly placed persons and he seeks the relief of preparation of a separate list of Kayamkulam Kayal F arm Workers to provide temporary unskilled workers to 2^nd respondent and its

¶50

24559 of 2009 2

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos. 2524 of 2006 &

¶52

contractors.

¶53

National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) is a common respondent in both these cases. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the NTPC that the Scheme had already been implemented and there was no objection from the people in that locality. It is after a substantially long period of time that these writ petitions have been filed.

¶54

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Scheme has not been implemented with full vigor. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the situation is so, the said Scheme cannot crystallize into an enforceable legal right. Details of the Minutes of the Scheme had been produced. The procedure prescribed under the Scheme had to be worked out in terms with the situation which was prevailing at the relevant point of time. It is not possible for this Court to issue any directions as prayed for especially when the said Scheme does not have any statutory force or can create a legal right in favour of the petitioners. That apart, it is the submission of the learned counsel for NTPC that even the

¶55

W.P.(C) Nos. 2524 of 2006 & 24559 of 2009 3

¶56

Scheme had been implemented long back and appropriate directions were given to employ the displaced persons and if at all there is any laches on the part of the contractors, the individual workers should have taken up the matter then and there and that this writ petition could not survive in view of the fact that they have no legal right to make any demand as claimed. I am in respectful agreement with the said view.

¶57

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are hence dismissed.

¶58

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶59

rka

Kochu Cherukkan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochu Cherukkan 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

G.Sureshkumar Vs Karavaram Panchayath Service Co-Op.

Mohan Kumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commisison & Ors.

Dr.C.S.James Vs Kerala Agricultural University

T.C.Money Vs Kel Ltd.

Gangadharan P.V. Vs Koottumughan Service Co-Operative Bank L

Gangadharan P.V Vs Koottumugham Service Co-Operative Bank