Disposed

Arumugham v. Kottayam Municipality

Kerala HC9 Nov 2012WP(C)/26552/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a writ petition by CLR workers challenging their termination and seeking directions to continue employment. The Court directed the Secretary to place petitioners' representations before the Council for decision within three months without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary to place petitioners' representations before the Council and finalize proceedings within three months.

Arumugham Vs Kottayam Municipality — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/18TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 26552 of 2012 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ARUMUGHAM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PERUMAL, HOUSE NO.232, KOSAMATTOM COLONY, PARAMBUZHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

2. CHANDRAKUMAR.P., S/O.PERUMAL, HOUSE NO.81, MANJU HOUSE, KUZHIKKATTU COLONY, CHANNANIKKADU.P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

3. SREEKUMAR.A., S/O.S.AMBIKADASAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, NEAR SANTHI BHAVAN, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

4. ANILKUMAR.A., S/O.AMBIKADASAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, NEAR SANTHI BHAVAN, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

5. JEYA GANESAN.K.,

¶12

S/O.KRISHNAN.M, KOSAMATTOM COLONY, PARAMBUZHA.P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶13

6. BIJU.T.S.

¶14

S/O.SOMAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL, VADAVATHUR, SANTHIGRAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶15

[ALL THE PETITIONERS' ARE WORKING AS C.L.R. WORKERS IN KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY].

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

Kss

..2/-

..2.....

WPC.NO.26552/2012 T

¶21

RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

1. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.P.O-686 001.

¶23

2. SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,

¶24

KOTTAYAM.P.O-686 001.

¶25

3. STATE OF KERALA,

¶26

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,

¶27

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

¶28

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶29

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW,SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU V.STEPHEN

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

Kss

¶32

WPC.NO.26552/2012 T

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KOTTAYAM OF THE IST PETITIONER.

¶36

P2- RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MUSTER ROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2012 MAINTAINED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶37

P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 05.11.2012.

¶38

P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 05.11.2012.

¶39

P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 05.11.2012.

¶40

P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 05.11.2012.

¶41

P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 05.11.2012.

¶42

P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 06.11.2012.

¶43

P9- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER DT. 05.11.2012.

¶44

P9[A]-A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DT. 05.11.2012.

¶45

P9[B]-A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DT. 05.11.2012.

¶46

P9[C]-A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DT. 05.11.2012.

¶47

P9[D]-A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DT. 05.11.2012.

¶48

P9[E]-A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DT. 05.11.2012.

¶49

P10- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25.09.2012 IN WP[C]NO.22147/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶55

¶56

W.P. (C) No. 26552 of 2012

¶57

¶58

Dated, this the 9^th day of November, 2012

¶59

JUDGMENT

¶60

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers :

¶61

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the 1^st respondent terminating petitioner's service as CLR workers for appointing fresh hands from open marker is illegal and unjustifiable.

¶62

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as directing the 1st respondent not to terminate the petitioners as CLR workers and continue to employ them for clearing, pre-monsoon sanitation works etc. c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as directing the 2nd respondent to place Exts. P3 to P8 representations for consideration of the Municipal Council and to take a decision thereon expeditiously within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶63

d. Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶64

2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶65

the grievance projected in this writ petition has already been

¶66

W.P.(C) No. 26552 of 2012

¶67

: 2 :

¶68

sought to be redressed by filing Exts. P3 to P8 representations before the 2^nd respondent. It is stated that the grievance of the petitioners will stand redressed, if a direction is given to the 2^rd respondent to take steps to consider the representations within a reasonable time.

¶69

Heard the learned standing counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, and also the learned Government Pleader for the 3^rd respondent.

¶70

In view of the limited nature of relief sought for, this Court finds it not necessary to go into the merits of the case. In the said circumstances, the 2^nd respondent is directed to cause Exts. P3 to P8 representations preferred by the petitioners, to be placed for consideration of the Council and the proceedings shall be finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶71

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶72

sd/-

¶73

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶74

kmd

¶75

/True copy/

¶76

P.A. to Judge

Arumugham v. Kottayam Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugham v. Kottayam Municipality

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.Stella Vs Asok Kumar Singh IAS

State of Kerala Vs S.Syam

Chandramathy Amma.K.S. Vs the Accountant General (a & E)

Elju Baby Vs the Controller of Examinations

Ajaitha Vs State of Kerala

P.Bindu Vs State of Kerala