Disposed

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC5 Nov 2013WP(C)/23879/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined to direct the Kerala Water Authority to frame new service rules as that falls within the authority's domain. Regarding promotion, the Court directed the authority to consider a specific objection filed against a provisional seniority list and allowed other petitioners to object within two weeks before finalization.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's objection against the provisional seniority list. Other petitioners given two weeks to file objections.

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal Vs Kerala Water… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/14TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23879 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. FRANCIS JOSEPH MALIYEKKAL, (PUMP OPERATOR, PUTHUR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY), MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, SUBASH NAGAR, P.O. MANNUTHY, THRISSUR - 680 651.

¶8

2. JOSE K.P, (PUMP OPERATOR, VARADIYAM, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY),

¶9

S/O. K.T. PORINCHU, KAMMAMAYAKKAL HOUSE, THRISSUR - 680 581.

¶10

3. SUBRAMANIA DAS, S/O.K.S. RAGHAVAN, (PUMP OPERATOR, VELLAYANI, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY), KARIPPARA HOUSE, CHAZHUR P.O.,THRISSUR - 680 571.

¶11

4. T.G. JOSEPH, S/O. GEROGE T.K, (PUMP OPERATOR, CHERUR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY), THEKKEKARA PUTHENPURAYIL, MANALITHARA P.O., THRISSUR - 680 589.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶13

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

¶14

SRI.B.HARRYLAL

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶17

2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. CIRCLE, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶18

3. EXECUTIVE ENGIENER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680 121.

¶19

4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶20

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Msd.

¶23

WP(C).No. 23879 of 2013 (H)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST.
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF HEAD OPERATORS AS ON 30/08/2008.(RELEVANT PAGES)
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE HEAD OPERATORS.
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/11/2012.
EXHIBIT-P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/12/2013 IN W.P(C) 29465/2012.
EXHIBIT-P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 20/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST DATED 01/03/2013. (RELEVANT PAGES)
EXHIBIT-P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/06/2013 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶33

W.P.C. No.23879 OF 2013

¶34

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2013.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioners are working in the category of Pump

¶37

Operator under the Kerala Water Authority. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers:

¶38

“i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 1^st Respondent to frame and notify forthwith appropriate 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.

¶39

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 1^st 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.”

¶40

As regards the prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus

¶41

commanding the 1^st respondents to frame rules, there cannot be a doubt with respect to the position that the same cannot be

¶42

granted by this Court. Framing rules is purely a matter, falling within the domain of the 1^st respondent and this Court cannot

¶43

W.P.(C) No.23879 OF 2013

¶44

¶45

direct an authority to frame rules in a particular manner for the purpose of providing promotional avenues to a particular category. The second prayer of the petitioners is for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion after correctly reckoning and notifying the final seniority list of operators. In this case, earlier, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(c) No.29465 of 2012. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per

¶46

Ext.P5 judgment with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action to correct the mistakes crept in the matter of assignment of seniority of personnel in the category of the Pump Operator.

¶47

After considering the representations submitted by the petitioners directed to be considered as per Ext.P5 judgment the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P6 order. Subsequent to Ext.P6, the respondents published Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List. In the said circumstances, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, in case the petitioners are having any grievance against the Provisional Seniority List, they

¶48

W.P.(C) No.23879 OF 2013

¶49

¶50

have to file their objections against Ext.P7.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st petitioner submitted that the petitioners have already submitted Ext.P8 objection against Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List. It is the further contention that despite the receipt of Ext.P8 objection, no steps were taken by the respondents to effect correction of the anomalies, allegedly crept in Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List. The learned standing counsel, on instructions, submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners as per Ext.P8 would be looked into, before finalisation of Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List. Taking note of the rival submissions, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition as hereunder:

¶52

The respondents shall consider the objection raised by the 1^st petitioner in Ext.P8 against Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List and take appropriate decision thereon in the matter of finalisation of the Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List. In case petitioners 2 to 4 got any grievance against Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List, it will be open to them to file their respective objections against Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List before the competent among the

¶53

W.P.(C) No.23879 OF 2013

¶54

¶55

respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

In case they file objection against Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List within the above stipulated time, the competent among the respondents shall consider such objection, along with Ext.P8 and pass appropriate orders in the matter of finalisation of Ext.P7 Provisional Seniority List, as expeditiously as possible.

¶57

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶58

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶59

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

V.K.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

V.T.Gigimon Vs the State of Kerala

Lakshmi Vs the Director

The Manager, St.Thomas U.P.School Vs Sri.S.Shajahan

Manu Vs State of Kerala

Bibitha G. Vs State of Kerala