Disposed

V.D. Dinesan v. Coir Board

Kerala HC8 Nov 2013WP(C)/25877/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a petitioner's grievance regarding seniority fixation is a departmental matter pending before the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation expeditively within two months while allowing opportunities to affected third parties for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representation for re-fixation of seniority expeditiously within two months and to afford opportunity to affected parties.

V.D. Dinesan Vs Coir Board — 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

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/17TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 25877 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.D. DINESAN

¶8

SENIOR STENOGRAPHER, COIR BOARD, 'COIR HOUSE' M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

¶10

SRI.S.SUJIN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

COIR BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 'COIR HOUSE', M.G.ROAD ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682006.

¶13

THE SECRETARY COIR BOARD, 'COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682006.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 25877 of 2013 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 16.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT POSTING THE PETITIONER IN THE CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE WHILE WORKING AS JR.STENOGRAPHER.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 18.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, COIR BOARD WHICH DISCLOSED THE AVAILABILITY OF THE VACANCY OF SR.STENOGRAPHER.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.21.2.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT CLAIMING PROMOTION AS SR.STENOGRAPHER.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS SENIOR STENOGRAPHER.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING RETROSPECTIVE PROMOTION.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE DATED 19.7.2011 TO EXAMINE EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 15.11.2011 GRANTING NOTIONAL SENIORITY TO THE PETITIONER FROM 1.5.2008.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.6.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING REFIXATION OF SENIORITY OF SR.STENOGRAPHER AS PER EXT.P6 REPORT.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.7.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD AS THE LAST REMINDER TO EXT.P8 REPRESENTATION.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

TKS

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶33

W.P.(C)No.25877 of 2013

¶34

Dated 8^th November, 2013

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is working as Senior Stenographer in Coir Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fixation of seniority of the petitioner was effected without properly looking into Ext.P6 report and consequently the petitioner was given notional seniority in the category of Senior Stenographer only with effect from 1.5.2008 as per Ext.P7. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Ext.P6 report the petitioner is entitled to get seniority in the category with effect from 23.9.2004. In the said circumstances, raising grievances against Ext.P7 the petitioner preferred Ext.P8 representation. It is the delay in the matter of consideration of Ext.P8 representation and non-consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Section Officer, that this writ petition has been filed .

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶38

Evidently, the grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P7 order and to redress the grievance against it the petitioner has already

¶39

WP(C).No.25877/2013 2

¶40

approached the 2^nd respondent through Ext.P8 representation. As per Ext.P8 representation, the petitioner sought for re-fixation of his seniority in the category of Senior Stenographer in terms of Ext.P6 report. I am of the view that since Ext.P8 representation is pending before the second respondent it is up to the second respondent to look into the grievances of the petitioner raised against Ext.P7 and pass orders in accordance with law. I.A.No.14868 of 2013 has been filed in this writ petition by third parties for their impleadment in the writ petition. However, this matter is yet to be admitted. I have already held that the grievance of the petitioner is a matter to be looked into by the second respondent while considering Ext.P8. In the said circumstances, I do not propose to allow I.A.No.14868 of 2013 and I am of the view that before passing orders on Ext.P8 representation the second respondent is bound to afford opportunities to persons who are likely to be affected in case of re-fixation of the seniority in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, certainly, the petitioners in I.A.No.14868 of 2013 who sought for their impleadment in the writ petition would also obtain an opportunity to raise their grievances against the prayer made by the petitioner in Ext.P8, at the appropriate time.

¶41

WP(C).No.25877/2013 3

¶42

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 representation expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that persons who sought for impleadment in this writ petition by filing I.A.No.14868 of 2013 and any other person, likely to be affected in case a favourable order re-fixing the seniority of the petitioner, shall also be put on notice, before passing orders on Ext.P8.

¶43

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

¶44

TKS

V.D. Dinesan v. Coir Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.D. Dinesan v. Coir Board

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

Deepa Nair Vs the Registrar, Cusat

Mervin T.Vincent Vs the Manager, Cahs Coyalmannam

Karthyayani Vs State of Kerala

M.D. Devasia Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Jaison C James Vs State of Kerala

M.Shebitha Vs the State of Kerala