Allowed

K.Bharathan v. Kerala State Federation for Fisheries

Kerala HC20 Jun 2013WP(C)/1427/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an absorbed retired employee of MATSYAFED, challenged rejection of his higher grade promotion application. The court held a subsequent order barring such benefits to retroactively applied orders invalid if the employer admitted entitlement for early retirees. The impugned order was set aside with direction to reconsider the application within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting higher grade application set aside. MATSYAFED directed to reconsider application within two months.

K.Bharathan Vs Kerala State Federation for… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/30TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 1427 of 2007 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.BHARATHAN, S/O.MADHAVAN(RTD) ICE MAN, RESIDING AT VINEESH NIVAS, PALAKKADI PARAMBA, B.G.ROAD, WEST HILL, CALICUT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶9

SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. KERALA STATE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD (MATSYAFED), REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, MATSYAFED OFFICE,

¶13

CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, MATSYAFED

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 1427 of 2007 (T)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLANT MANAGER, IC HILL, CALICUT TO BUILDING YARD, BE	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE E AND FREEZING PLANT, WEST THE SUPERINTENDENT, BOAT YPORE.
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTOR, KERALA	ORDER OF THE MANAGING FISHERIES CORPORATION.
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 18.06.2001.
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER.	REPRESENTATION OF THE
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE	COMMUNICATION OF FIRST PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT	S	EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2(A)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 04.03.2003.	G.O.(MS) NO.11/03/F&PD
EXT.R2(B)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24.11.2006.	ORDER NO.MATSYAFED/E2/51/05

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

P.A.TO JUDGE.

¶22

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶23

W.P.(C) No.1427 of 2007

¶24

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2013

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner was appointed as casual employee in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation Limited and was later absorbed in the service as Watchman on 22.05.1971. Subsequently he was also promoted as Iceman on 02.04.1979, in the Corporation itself. However, the Corporation became defunct and “Kerala State Co-operative Federation of Fisheries Development” was created, known as “MATSYAFED”, and the employees of the defunct Corporation and also some other Corporations were absorbed in the said Federation. It is also admitted that the petitioner was not granted any further promotion and he retired as Iceman on 31.10.2000.

¶27

The short question raised in the above writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to time bound higher grade promotion, being a person absorbed in MATSYAFED, as is applicable to the regular employees of the MATSYAFED, going by the terms of Ext.P3.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.1427 of 2007

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

In fact, Ext.P3 was a clarification insofar as

¶31

entitling the erstwhile employees of the defunct Corporation absorbed in MATSYAFED and kept as a separate unit in the Fisheries Department, of the benefits of higher grade promotion. The provisions of higher grade as is applicable to Government employees were also made applicable to such employees as per Ext.P3 order. However, on making an application for being considered for higher grade, as is evidenced by Ext.P4, the same came to be rejected by Ext.P5. Ext.P5, in fact, relied on Ext.R2(a) order by which the Government have sanctioned such higher grade only from the date of Ext.R2(a), i.e., from 04.03.2003, on which date the petitioner stood retired.

¶32

However, the counter affidavit of the MATSYAFED itself shows that subsequently, the Managing Director has issued Ext.R2(b), wherein it is specifically stated that the employees who retired before Ext.R2(a) will also be granted such higher grade in terms of Ext.R2(a) order. In any event, the benefits which have been given by Ext.P3 cannot be

¶33

W.P.(C) No.1427 of 2007

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

made prospective from the date of a subsequent order, i.e., Ext.R2(a). However, such intricacies need not be gone into, in view of Ext.R2(b) order passed by the MATSYAFED which entitled the employees who retired earlier, to the benefit of higher grade.

¶36

Hence, Ext.P5 order passed by the MATSYAFED rejecting the petitioner's case for higher grade is set aside. The MATSYAFED is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition and the counter affidavit along with the certified copy of the judgment before the second respondent, who shall consider the same in accordance with law within the time stipulated herein above.

¶37

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶39

K.Bharathan v. Kerala State Federation for Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Bharathan v. Kerala State Federation for Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G.Venugopalan Vs the Thrissur Idstrict Panchayath

Sindu a. Vs State of Kerala

G.Vasantha Vs State of Kerala

Secretary,Vilangad Scheduled Vs Sri.Mukkat Kunhan

M.Balachandran Vs Kseb

K.C.Thomas Vs District Collector,Kottayam