Dismissed

M.Prasanna v. the Chief Post Master General

Kerala HC20 Aug 2013WA/1263/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the Single Judge's order regarding Mahila Pradhan Agents whose relatives work in the Postal Department. The Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the appeals, directing consideration of representations within four weeks, distinguishing itself on facts from Parukutty case.

What did the court decide?

Both writ appeals are dismissed. The consideration of representation by the respondent department shall be within 4 weeks from today.

M.Prasanna Vs the Chief Post Master General — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/29TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

WA.No. 1263 of 2013 () IN WP(C).18284/2012 -------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18284/2012 04-07-2013

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

M.PRASANNA AGED 47 YEARS GOWRISHAM, KARIMBA PALAKKAD-678597. (FROM MANIAMPADATHU HOUSE KURINJIPADAM, KARIMBA.P.O., PALAKKAD.)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS CORPORATION GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING, OVER BRIDGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES OTTAPALAM DIVISION, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679101.

¶13

4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POSTS MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678582.

¶14

5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678582.

¶15

6. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

R1 - R4 & R6 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-08-2013 ALONG WITH W.A NO.1266/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶19

W.A Nos. 1263 of 2013 & 1266 of 2013

¶20

Dated this, the 20^th day of August, 2013

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Manjula Chellur,C.J.:

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not in dispute that the appellants were the writ petitioners who were unsuccessful before the learned Single Judge. Undisputed facts are that both the appellants are Mahila Pradhan Agents under Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana, with effect from 1985. The appellants were discharging the function as Mahila Pradhan Agents canvassing and mobilising deposits under recurring deposits accounts of post offices located within the respective Grama Panchayat and the post office to which they were attached to. They were working so since 1985. It is not in dispute that the letter dated 3.1.1984 issued by the Central Government Postal Department had notified restrictions while appointing persons as agents or renewing the existing agency that if any near relative of the person who intends to become Mahila Pradhan Agent under scheme is working in the Postal Departments, such persons should not be given the agency or if already existing agency was in their

¶24

W.A Nos. 1263 & 1266 of 2013

¶25

¶26

favour, the renewal of the existing agency should not be granted. No doubt, since 1985 they were continuing to discharge the duties of Mahila Pradhan Agents; but notices were sent by the Block Development Officer as per the instructions contained in the letter dated 3.1.1984. It is also brought on record that the appellants were attached to different postal division, while their near relative were working in altogether different divisions.

¶27

The learned Single Judge after referring to Union of India and others v. V.P. Parukutty (1997) 2 SCC 252) was of the opinion that the representation of the appellants be considered and disposed of the same. As a matter of fact Parukutty's case pertains to 1976 appointment as Mahila Pradhan agents and notification of the Central Government came to be issued much later in 1984. However, we find no good ground to interfere with the opinion of the learned Single Judge and both the appeals are dismissed.

¶28

The consideration of the representation by the respondent department shall be within 4 weeks from today.

¶29

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, jma/20.8 Judge.

¶30

//true copy// P.A to Judge

M.Prasanna v. the Chief Post Master General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Prasanna v. the Chief Post Master General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadevan Nair P.K. Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Mahadevan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.

M.Muraleedharan Nair Vs Sri. v.Kochu

Sheeja Musthafa Vs the Union Bank of India

State of Kerala Vs Geena Joseph