Disposed

Jayadevan Raja v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Kerala HC7 Jan 2015WP(C)/364/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ relief for regularization of service from the date of appointment rather than the regularization order date. The Court held the matter was within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Board and directed petitioners to approach the Board.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Board by filing a representation within three weeks; Board to decide within three months.

Jayadevan Raja Vs Malabar Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 364 of 2015 (U) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): --------------

¶7

1. JAYADEVAN RAJA K C AGED 53 YEARS S/O.K.C.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI SURYAKANTHI APARTMENTS, KALLINGAL, KODUMB P.O. PALAKKAD.

¶8

2. GOKULAKRISHNAN AGED 31 YEARS S/O.LATE KUNJETTAN RAJA, PAZHAYANALUKETTU MALIKA MANKAVU, KOVILAKOM, MANKAVU KOZHIKODE.

¶9

3. RAVISANKAR RAJA AGED 30 YEARS S/O.LATE RAJA RAJA VARMA, PUTHANMALIK, MANKAVU KOVILAKOM, MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

4. P.RAMACHANDRAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAMARAR, MARATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMURI NEMMARA, PALAKKAD. 5. S.RAVEENDRAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE SUBURAYAN, PADINJAREKALAM, PANAKKATTIRI PALAKKAD. 6. K.RAJAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNAN KUTTY MANNADIAR, LAKSHMI GRUHAM KIZHAKUMURI, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶11

1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE PERINGOTTUKAVU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE KIZHAKKUMURI, ELAVANCHERRY, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 508 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE.

¶12

R BY SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 364 of 2015 (U)

¶15

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JULY 20, 2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶19

EXT.P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED OCTOBER 20, 2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶20

EXT.P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED OCTOBER 31, 2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶22

True Copy/

¶23

P A to Judge

¶24

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶25

=========================

¶26

W.P(C).No.364 of 2015

¶27

============================ Dated this the 07^th day of January, 2015

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioners claim that their service have been regularized as per Ext.P1 order. However, it is submitted that the petitioners have been regularized in service in the respective posts held by them only with effect from 18.06.2013. Petitioners submit that they are entitled for regularization with effect from the date of their initial appointment. Petitioners, aggrieved by non granting regularization with effect from the date of appointment approached this Court. Petitioners seem to have approached the third respondent trustee and submitted Ext.P2 representation. The third respondent trustee forwarded the representation to the second respondent along with his recommendations to be placed before the first respondent for taking appropriate action. On account of non consideration of Ext.P2 by the first respondent, petitioners approached this Court.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the second respondent cannot take a decision in the matter. The decision can only be taken by the first respondent.

¶31

W.P(C).No.364 of 2015

¶32

¶33

Therefore, I am of the view petitioners shall approach the Board by filing representation. That shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter the Board shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a further period of three months.

¶34

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶37

Sbna/09/01/15

Jayadevan Raja v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayadevan Raja v. Malabar Devaswom 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

V.Anil Kumar Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Shidu A.S Vs State of Kerala

P.S.Muraleedharan Vs the Kerala Sports Council

Aboobacker Sidhikh K Vs Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram

B.v.Rangayya Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Jestin Joy Vs Co-Operative Academy of Professional Education (Cape)