Disposed

Rahimath.K.a. v. Registrar

Kerala HC6 Nov 2012WP(C)/9723/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking extension of employment benefits granted to daily rated farm labourers in a previous judgment. The Court directed the respondent University to consider the petitioners' application and documents and pass an order within two months without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioners' representation (Ext.P4) and documents within two months and pass appropriate orders.

Rahimath.K.a. Vs Registrar — 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 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/15TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9723 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. RAHIMATH.K.A., D/O. R. ABOOTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, KARIPPAMKULAM HOUSE, THRUVANIKKAVU, P.O. OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR.

¶8

2. SUBI.T.M, PULINKUZHY HOUSE, PATTALAKKUNNU, KUTTICHIRA, P.O. MANNUTHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3. RAHMATH MAJEED, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PANANCHAKAM, P.O. MANNUTHI, THRISSUR.

¶10

4. VISALAKSHI.P.M, KOVATH HOUSE, PAINJARE VELLANIKKARA, P.O. MADAKKATHARA, THRISSUR.

¶11

5. BINDHU.K.B, VALOKKOTTU HOUSE, ASARIKKADAVU.P.O, PAYYANAM, PALAKKUNNU, THRISSUR.

¶12

6. RAMESH.P.P, PAMBUNGAL HOUSE, ALAYANCE STREE, P.O. MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.

¶13

7. LEKHA.A.C, THANICKAL HOUSE, P.O. MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.

¶14

8. SIVAKUMAR, ELAYATHPARAMBIL, P.O. PUTTAZHY, OLARIKKARA THRISSUR.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA.

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 656.

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.9723/2012-M:

¶19

2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKODE, WAYANAD - 673 576.

¶20

3. PROFESSOR AND HEAD, UNIVERSITY LIVE STOCK FARM AND FODDER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, POOKKODE, WAYANAD -673 576.

¶21

R1 BY SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, S.C, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,S.C.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Prv.

¶24

W.P.(C).NO.9723/2012-M

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 23/01/2012.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 31/01/2012.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PETITIONERS WITH EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/03/2012. EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/07/2010 IN W.P(C) 13870/2010.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 18/11/2010.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶37

W.P.(C). No.9723 of 2012

¶38

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2012

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioners were working as daily rated farm labourers under the respondent University and are now working under the second respondent. By virtue of Ext.P5 judgment, certain benefits have been extended to similarly situated persons, in so far as the claim of the petitioners therein was caused to be considered. The first respondent University passed Ext.P6 order dated 18.11.2010 extending the relief to the permissible extent, whereby the said petitioners were permitted to participate in the test, granting age relaxation and such other benefits. The petitioners herein contend that they are also situated similar to the petitioners in Ext.P5 judgment and have approached this Court seeking for similar benefits.

¶41

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the benefit given by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment is sought to be widened by several other persons as well, who actually are not entitled to have the said

¶42

W.P.C. No. 9723 of 2012 -2-

¶43

benefit, by virtue of the nature and extent of engagement.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that, it was pursuant to Ext.P1 notified by the second respondent granting a chance to all concerned to avail similar benefits, that the petitioners also obtained certificates as to engagement issued by the departmental authorities, which were enclosed along with Ext.P3 series applications. The petitioners have preferred Ext.P4 representation dated 15.3.2012 before the second respondent for extending similar benefits as given in Ext.P5/P6 and have approached this Court for giving appropriate directions in this regard.

¶45

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent University and also the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 and the documents produced by the petitioners in support of their claim and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, taking note of the contents of Ext.P5 and P6. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate within 'two

¶46

W.P.C. No. 9723 of 2012

¶47

-3-

¶48

months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merits or as to the rights and liberties of the parties concerned.

¶49

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶50

Kp/-

Rahimath.K.a. v. Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahimath.K.a. v. Registrar

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

The Manager, a.U.P.School Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith.Raj.D. Vs Mahatma Gamndhi University

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

T.Jawahar and Another Vs Sri.N.Natarajan and Another

P.J.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Retnamma Vs the Deputy Inspector General of POLICE(MEDICAL0