Appeals challenging a writ order granting promotion and seniority restoration to a petitioner were dismissed. The court held the petitioner's juniors were already promoted and noted a delay of 10 years in approaching the court.
Petition for promotion granted; monetary benefits denied due to delay; third party appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2015/2ND CHAITHRA, 1937
WA.No. 38 of 2013 IN WP(C).16923/2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16923/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 31-10-2012
APPELLANTS/3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS:
1. MONCY .T. MALIKKAL
(NOW RESIDING AT THANVELIL HOUSE VADAVATTOOR P.O KOTTAYAM 686 010)
2. SRI ANISH A.P AGED 50 YEARS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013
(NOW RESIDING AT AMBALI PARAMBIL HOUSE P.O KADALUNDY
BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1. ABU.N, S/O.NOORUTHEENKUTTY LOWER DIVISION CLERK KERALA STATE AUDI VISUAL AND REPROGRAPOHIC CENTER (RENAMED AS KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND TRAINING (NOW WORKING ON DEPUTATION TO KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD TRIVANDRUM
...2
WA.No. 38 of 2013 IN WP(C).16923/2011
-2-
2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE (RE-NAMED AS KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND TRAINING HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX VATTIYOOR KAVU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013
R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN SMT.K.K.RAZIYA SC R1 BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. GIRIJA GOPAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2015, ALONG WITH WA. 260/2013, WA. 211/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 38 of 2013 IN WP(C).16923/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 12TH GOVERNING BODY DATED 11.3.1998
ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.1.2005 ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.7.2000
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE RULES
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
JJJ
ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag. C.J. &
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260 of 2013 & W.A. No.211 of 2015
Dated this the 23th day of March, 2015
J U D G M E N T
A.M.Shaffique, J.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2012 in W.P.(C) No.16923 of 2011. Writ Appeal No.38/2013 has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal No.260/2013 has been filed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, dissatisfied with the non grant of various monetary benefits to the petitioner and Writ Appeal No.211/2015 has been filed by the third party seeking leave of Court to file the same. Parties are referred to as shown in the Writ Petition.
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260/2013 & 211/2015
-2-
seeking all the consequential benefits arising from such promotion. It is inter alia contended by the petitioner that he entered into service as Office Assistant on 14.7.1995 and was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 24.9.1998. The post of L.D. Clerk is a feeder category to the post of U.D. Clerk. It was contended that the 3rd respondent joined service as L.D. Store Keeper on 22.2.1996 and the 4th respondent joined service as L.D. Store Keeper on 4.8.1995. L.D. Store Keeper is a lower post for which the prescribed qualification is SSLC or its equivalent and one year experience as Store Keeper; whereas the qualification for the post of L.D. Clerk, as per Service Rules, is Bachelor Degree. It is also stated that L.D. Store Keeper is not in the feeder category of L.D. Clerk. However, respondents 3 and 4, were granted postings as L.D. Clerk by way of category change, which was not in terms with Service Rules. This category change was
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260/2013 & 211/2015
-3-
effected on 4.7.2000 and respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as U.D. Clerk from 14.06.2001. It is claiming the very same benefit that this Writ Petition has been filed.
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260/2013 & 211/2015
-4-
U.D. Clerk on the basis of the orders to be passed and the fixation of salary shall be retrospectively on a notional basis. The monetary benefits shall only be prospective, in view of the particular facts and circumstances including the plight of the 2nd respondent, which is in the final stage.
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260/2013 & 211/2015
-5-
appellants/respondents 3 and 4 to challenge the judgment and accordingly we are of the view that Writ Appeal No.38/2013 is liable to be dismissed.
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260/2013 & 211/2015
-6-
representations, he did not approach this Court within a reasonable time. He had approached this Court after 10 years from the date on which respondents 3 and 4 were promoted. In such circumstance, we do not think that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in not granting the monetary benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner was entitled to get promotion on notional basis and fixation of pay scale accordingly. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent complained of.
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260/2013 & 211/2015
-7-
determined by the governing body. If at all the Writ Petitioner is entitled for any promotion, the same benefit ought to have been granted to the third party as well. As far as her claim is concerned, if she is entitled to get promotion on the basis that respondents 3 and 4 had been promoted, it is always open for her to seek appropriate remedy before the authority concerned and if it is refused, to approach this Court in appropriate proceedings. In a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner it is not open for the third party to claim the said benefit and that too, when the review petition filed by her stands dismissed. Hence, we are of the view that it shall always be open for the third party appellant to agitate her rights before the appropriate authority and if her rights are refused, it shall always be open for her take up the matter before this Court in appropriate proceedings. Hence, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
W.A. Nos. 38 & 260/2013 & 211/2015
-8-
In the light of the aforesaid observations, all the
appeals are dismissed.
Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
jjj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether promotion granted to juniors entitles the petitioner to monetary benefits.
Whether a third party can claim promotion benefits based on equality in a writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Valsala Kumari Devi v. State of KeralaReferred¶64
- 2011(3) KLT 549
MONCY .T. MALIKKAL
SRI ANISH A.P
Abu.N
STATE OF KERALA
KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE
Valsala Kumari Devi
ASHOK BHUSHAN
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
ASHOK BHUSHAN and A.M. SHAFFIQUE
Parties & counsel
