Dismissed

T.M.Varghese v. K.W.A.

Kerala HC3 Jun 2016OP/2344/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, former provisional employees of PHED/KWA, delayed challenging their regularisation date for 11 years after a provisional seniority list was published. The court dismissed the original petition holding that they slept over their rights and were not entitled to rake up settled issues, relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding delay.

What did the court decide?

The original petition stood dismissed with no costs awarded.

T.M.Varghese Vs K.W.A. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/13TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

OP.No. 2344 of 2003 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. T.M.VARGHESE, SURVEYOR GR.II, IPD SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.

¶8

2. P.V.SADANANDAN, SURVEYOR GR.II, IPD SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.

¶9

3. I.L.GIRIJADEVI, SURVEYOR GR.II, WATER WORKS SECTION NO.II, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, IPD DIVISION, PALAKKAD.

¶14

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH DIVISION, CHEMBUKAVU THRISSUR.

¶15

4. REVI P.K., SURVEYOR GR.I, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, THRISSUR.

¶16

5. SUDHEER BABU C.S., SURVEYOR GR.II, WATER WORK SECTION NO.I, THRISSUR.

¶17

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY, SC, KWA R1-R3 BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, KWA

¶18

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

THE MATTER STANDS POSTED IN THE DISPOSAL LIST. THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONERS. THE ORIGINAL PETITION IS CLOSED WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS RAISED.

¶21

SD/A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE.

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

PA TO JUDGE

¶24

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶25

O.P. No. 2344 of 2003 (D)

¶26

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioners are erstwhile provisional employees

¶29

of the Public Health Engineering Department (for brevity 'PHED'), which was transferred to the Kerala Water Authority, an autonomous body; a creature of Statute. The formation of the authority was in the year 1984. There was a dispute as to how the employees, earlier employed in the PHED, and those employed by the authority after 01.04.1984, are to be regularised. The issue went up to the Supreme Court and the same was decided by Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority - 1990 (2) KLT 673 . The regularisation was directed as per the specific directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as is seen from 1990 (2) KLT 673 .

¶30

O.P. No. 2344/2003

¶31

-2-

¶32

The petitioners were provisionally appointed

¶33

to the PHED and continued even after the creation of the authority. While the proceedings before Court were pending, the petitioners were retrenched. As for the petitioners, what would be applicable is direction no.1 in the afore cited judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

¶34

“(1) The Authority will with immediate effect regularise the service of all ex-PHED employees as per its Resolution of 30^th January, 1987 without waiting for State Government approval.”

¶35

On the basis of the aforesaid directions, the petitioners were reinstated in service as per Ext.P1 dated 24.06.1991. Ext.P1 has the respective petitioners, at Sl. Nos. 12, 14 and 15. Ext.P1 also evidences that the petitioners 1 and 3 were appointed in July, 1981, and the 2^nd petitioner in October, 1983

¶36

O.P. No. 2344/2003

¶37

-3-

¶38

under the PHED and continued upto 1990, when they were retrenched, just prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶39

On the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.09.1990, the petitioners were entitled to be reinstated in service, which was done as per Ext.P1. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 dated 17.02.1995, the petitioners were regularised with effect from the date on which they joined duty with the authority, in pursuance of Ext.P1 proceedings. The petitioners, hence, were regularised respectively on 12.07.1991, 23.02.1993 and 30.08.1991.

¶40

The learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that as per direction no.6 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners were entitled to be considered as continuing in service, and, as in the case of similarly situated persons, were entitled to be

¶41

O.P. No. 2344/2003

¶42

-4-

¶43

regularised as on the date of the judgment, being 19.09.1990. Ext.P10 is referred to, to indicate that all other similar persons were given such regularisation date.

¶44

Despite Exts.P1 and P3 having specifically

¶45

regularised the petitioners from the date of appointment, the petitioners did not challenge the same. The issue was raised after 11 years in 2002, when a provisional seniority list was published as per Ext.P7 dated 05.04.2002. The petitioners were shown as having seniority from the date of their joining duty, in pursuance of Ext.P1. An objection was filed and this Court was also approached. The original petition filed before this Court was disposed of directing consideration of the objections. The objections were considered and rejected by Ext.P13, upon which the present original petition is filed.

¶46

O.P. No. 2344/2003

¶47

-5-

¶48

The petitioners were provisionally engaged in the PHED and subsequently engaged by the Authority also, after its constitution. The petitioners were retrenched by the Authority and in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they were reinstated in service as per Ext.P1. Their date of regularisation in service was also shown as that on which they joined duty, pursuant to Ext.P1 order passed. Ext.P3 of 1995 was the order by which the date of regularisation was communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners did not challenge the said order. The petitioners having slept over their rights, after seven years, when a provisional list was published, showing the date of joining as the date of their regularisation in service on reappointment, the petitioners took up the matter by filing an objection to the provisional list. The

¶49

O.P. No. 2344/2003

¶50

-6-

¶51

objections so made was after 11 years of the appointment and about 7 years after Ext.P3 order was issued.

¶52

The petitioners having slept over their rights,

¶53

cannot attempt to rake up settled issues. Many persons, in the meanwhile, have been promoted and many had retired, in which period the petitioners did not take up this challenge before any forum. The above original petition was also filed in the year 2003, and has been pending here for the last 14 years. What the petitioners attempt to do is to rake up the issues, which have been settled long before. The petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa - 2010 (12) SCC 471 .

¶54

O.P. No. 2344/2003

¶55

-7-

¶56

The original petition, hence, would stand

¶57

dismissed. No Costs.

¶58

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶59

jjj 4/6/16

T.M.Varghese v. K.W.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Varghese v. K.W.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Varghese Vs Sarafudheen

M.V. Prabhavathi Vs Smt. Cicy Antony

Raju V.E Vs R. Rajasekharan Nair

Johnson Vs State of Kerala

G.S.Rajamohan Vs the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation

Ebrahimkutty Vs State of Kerala