Dismissed

Dr.P.Nazeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2016OP(KAT)/71/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a petition challenging the vacation of a stay order against the repatriation of a deputationist to his parent department. The court held that an employer has the prerogative to end deputation and no vested right exists for continuation, declining to interfere as the underlyingOA is still pending before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interference declined; stay vacated by Tribunal on merits affirmed; contentions left open for Tribunal.

Dr.P.Nazeer Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

OP(KAT).No. 71 of 2016 (Z) ---------------------------

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1116/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-05-2016)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

DR. P. NAZEER,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR. PEERUKANU K, DIRECTOR, MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT(MINORITY WEFARE) GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT 'SEERA' VELLAYANI JUNCTION, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 020.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF SMT.MOLTY MAJEED SMT.RAAGA R.RAMALAKSHMI SRI.K.J.SHARATH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, (MINORITY WELFARE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

¶12

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.VINCENT.

¶13

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(KAT).No. 71 of 2016 (Z)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT. P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VIDE OA 1116/2016 ALONGWITH ANNEXURES. A-1 TO A-6.

¶18

EXT.P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2016 IN OA 1116/2016.

¶19

EXT.P3 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2016 IN OA 1116/2016.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶25

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶26

O.P.(KAT)No.71 OF 2016

¶27

Dated this the 2^nd June , 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶30

The interim order of status quo granted by the Tribunal with regard to repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department as per Annexure A6 order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

¶31

The sequence of events as disclosed from the proceedings is that the petitioner, while working as Asst.Professor in the Department of Islam History, Mannaniya College of Arts and Science, Pangode, Thiruvananthapuram, submitted an application to the post of Director of Minority Welfare Department, stating that, given a chance, he is ready to satisfy the duty contributing all he knows by virtue of his

¶32

¶33

O.P.(KAT)No.71 OF 2016

¶34

credentials to the said post. Considering the application, the Government readily accepted the same and passed AnnexureA1 order dated 25.08.2011 appointing the petitioner on deputation to the post of Director for a period of two years. Subsequently, as per Annexure A2 dated 16.07.2013, the period of deputation was extended by another two years. Still further,

¶35

as per Annexure-A4 order dated 07.08.2015, the period of deputation was extended for one more year from 26.08.2015, thus granting the maximum period of deputation as contemplated under Rule 140(a) of Part I KSR.

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the subsequent events, whereby the Government recently considered and passed Annexure- A6 order, by virtue of which he has been repatriated to the parent department putting an end to the deputation. This was to the chagrin of the petitioner, who approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1116 of 2016, stating

¶37

that absolutely no rhyme or reason is there with regard to reversion/repatriation, in so far as nothing is stated in this regard

¶38

¶39

O.P.(KAT)No.71 OF 2016

¶40

in Annexure A6. It is also pointed out that a decision was taken by the concerned Cabinet way back in January, 2016 (20.01.2016)as per Annexure-A5, that he could be regularised in the service as Director of Minority Welfare Department. It is in the meanwhile, that the petitioner has been sent back, which will quite adversely affect the rights and interests of the petitioner in all respects and hence the challenge.

¶41

When the matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal, an interim order was passed on 24.05.2016 as borne by Ext.P2, directing to maintain 'status quo' and requiring the Government Pleader to get instructions and to produce the relevant files. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Government Pleader obtained necessary instructions and produced the relevant file on the next date of posting, i.e. 30.05.2016 explaining the facts and circumstances. The submission was taken note of by the Tribunal and the Tribunal went through the file, upon which it was revealed that there was sustainable reason for repatriation ordered. In the said

¶42

¶43

O.P.(KAT)No.71 OF 2016

¶44

circumstance, the interim order of 'status quo' ordered on 24.05.2016 as per Ext.P2 was vacated as per Ext.P3. The O.A. is still pending consideration. This according to the petitioner is quite arbitrary in all respects and hence the challenge seeking for immediate interference by this Court.

¶45

During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner places the entire thrust upon the absence of any reason in Annexure A6 order, for repatriating him which allegedly amounts to reversion. Similarly, the pendency of the question of regularisation, as borne by Annexure A5, is also referred to.

¶46

This Court is not much impressed with the submissions so made, primarily for the reason that the petitioner admittedly was only a deputationist and it is for the employer to take appropriate decision depending upon the facts and circumstances to put an end to the deputation. The job specification, the job requirement and such other aspects are coming exclusively within

¶47

the domain of the employer and the employee cannot have any vested right to say that deputation has to be continued. This is

¶48

¶49

O.P.(KAT)No.71 OF 2016

¶50

the law declared by the Apex Court and we find support from the ruling reported in AIR 2000 SC 2076 (Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India and another)

¶51

Yet another aspect is to be noted with regard to the case projected that no reason has been stated in Annexure-A6. It was as per Annexure- A1 order that that the petitioner himself got

¶52

an entry to the post of Director. At that time, another person by name Shri G. Chakravarthy Madhos Rupavals, who was originally appointed as the Special Officer was occupying the post as Director, by virtue of the Government Order No.G.O.(P) No.18/2011/GAD dated 14.01.2011. It was quite after a few months of his assignment that the petitioner voluntarily made an application (cited in the concerned G.O. as the 6^th reference) stating that if he were given a chance, he would contribute all he knew for the better governance of the institution /establishment and immediately on receipt of the same, the other person by name Shri G. Chakravarthy Madhos Rupavals holding the post of the Director was simply repatriated and the petitioner was given

¶53

¶54

O.P.(KAT)No.71 OF 2016

¶55

appointment as the Director on deputation for a period of two years, which was extended from time to time as mentioned above. Absolutely no reason is stated in Annexure A1 order as well, for sending the other person, who was holding the chair of Director. How the Government could act on the basis of any such application as submitted by the petitioner, volunteering to contribute his skills and credentials to a given post at any point of time, as done in Annexure A1, remains a matter of mystery. This Court, however, does not intend to express anything further with regard to the course and events, as 'five years' are almost over and the proceedings have taken a different turn, as reflected from Annexure A6. Still, the nature of contentions putforth by the petitioner was sought to be examined by the Tribunal, especially in the light of prayer for regularisatiion based on Annexure A5. It was accordingly that Ext.P2 interim order was passed granting stay with further order to produce the file. After going through the file, as reflected from Ext.P3, the Tribunal got satisfied that there was nothing wrong or illegal on the part of the Government

¶56

¶57

O.P.(KAT)No.71 OF 2016

¶58

in having issued Annexure A6. It was accordingly that the stay was vacated as per Ext.P3.

¶59

The petitioner has not raised any tenable ground to interfere. Interference is declined and the Original Petition is dismissed. The contentions raised in the O.A. are left open, as it is to be dealt with by the Tribunal at the first instance.

¶60

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶61

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶62

Dr.P.Nazeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.P.Nazeer v. State of Kerala

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

N.Ramakrishnan Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

O.v.Rameshkumar Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs v.Radha

Union of India Vs Raju M.V.

M.B.Hospital Vs the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board

Inspector General Police Vs Jayan T.K