Disposed

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC11 Dec 2012WP(C)/29465/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, pump operators, challenged lack of uniform service rules and promotion avenues compared to clerks/cadres. Court avoided merits and directed the authority to decide the representation after a hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent to consider representation, give hearing, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal Vs Kerala Water Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/20TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 29465 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. FRANCIS JOSEPH MALIYEKKAL,

¶8

(PUMP OPERATOR, PUTHUR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY)

¶9

MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, SUBASH NAGAR, P.O

¶10

MANNUTHY, THRISSUR 680651

¶11

2. JOSE K.P,

¶12

(PUMP OPERATOR, VARADIYAM, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY)

¶13

S/O K.T.PORINCHU, KAMMAMAYAKKAL HOUSE

¶14

THRISSUR 680581

¶15

3. SUBRAMANYA DAS,

¶16

S/O K.S RAGHAVAN, (PUMP OPERATOR, VELLAYANI,

¶17

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY), KARIPPARA HOUSE

¶18

CHAZHUR P.O, THRISSUR 680571

¶19

4. T.G. JOSEPH,

¶20

S/O GEORGE T.K, (PUMP OPERATOR, CHERUR

¶21

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY), THEKKEKARA PUTHEN PURAYIL

¶22

MANALITHARA P.O, VEERDIPADEN, THRISSUR 680589

¶23

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶24

SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN SRI.M.V.ASHIM SRI.B.HARRYLAL

¶25

RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 685033

¶27

2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

¶28

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H CIRCLE, THRISSUR 1

¶29

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶30

P.H DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA

¶31

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶32

P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR 1

¶33

BY MILLU DANDAPANI, SC.

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

MNS

¶36

¶37

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 04-08-2012

¶39

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-08-2008 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALSO ENCLOSING THE LIST OF HEAD OPERATORS THEN IN SERVICE

¶40

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PRELIMINARY SENIORITY LIST DATED 05-10-2009

¶41

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYEES REGULATIONS 1999

¶42

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O DATED 19-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT AT GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTING THE 9TH PAY REVISION RECOMMENDATIONS

¶43

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09-11-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶44

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

P.A TO JUDGE

¶47

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 29465 of 2012

¶50

¶51

Dated, this the 11^th day of December, 2012

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

The petitioners have approached this Court with the

¶54

following prayers :

¶55

“1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to frame and notify forthwith a proper and fair service rules for the technical categories including operators, Head operators, Mechanical superintendent and higher posts after extending benefits of fair and uniform promotion avenues and corresponding pay scales, to those cadres at par with the benefits presently available to the cadres of clerks and overseer Gr. III (Civil) serving under the Kerala Water Authority.

¶56

Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotions after correctly reckoning and notifying the final seniority list of Operators and to formally offer them due promotions as Head Operators, Mechanical Superintendent and to further higher posts with effect from their date of eligibility with attendant benefits, as per the service rules to be notified.

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 29465 of 2012

¶58

: 2 :

¶59

Grant such other reliefs that may be just, proper and necessary in the interest of justice.

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance projected in this writ petition has already been highlighted by the first petitioner before the first respondent by filing Ext. P6 representation, which was sent by registered post. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said representation has been preferred in respect of similar grievance on behalf of other petitioners as well and that the petitioners will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent to have Ext. P6 considered and finalized within a reasonable time.

¶61

Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondent Water Authority as well.

¶62

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P6 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to

¶63

W.P.(C) No. 29465 of 2012

¶64

: 3 :

¶65

the first petitioner as the representative of the petitioners, at

¶66

the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶67

The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment

¶68

along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶69

sd/-

¶70

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶71

kmd

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal v. Kerala Water Authority

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

Y.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Jose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Abey Daniel Vs Regional Deputy Director

V.Subramaniam Potti Vs Devaswom Board Commissioner

K.I.Xavier Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Binitha Chandran Vs Kreala Public Service Commission