Dismissed

Harinathan T.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2016OP(KAT)/78/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala filed an Original Petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal's interim order that varied a stay on service regularisation proceedings. The Court dismissed the petition, deprecating the petitioner for not impleading the subsequently appointed replacement driver and for not disclosing the termination proceedings in the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition was dismissed with no costs imposed.

Harinathan T.K Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶6

OP(KAT).No. 78 of 2016 (Z)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA(EKM) 46/2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13.6.2016 PETITIONER :

¶8

HARINATHAN T.K,

¶9

DRIVER ON DAILY WAGES, KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.KONDAZHY, THRISSUR, AGED 52, S/O. GOPALAN T.K., THEKKEKUNDIL HOUSE, KONDAZHY, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶14

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶15

KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.KONDAZHY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 001.

¶16

R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶17

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(KAT).No. 78 of 2016 (Z)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- ----------------------P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.46 OF 2016 WITH ITS ANNEXURES. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2016 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 46 OF 2016.

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.6.2016.IN O.A.(EKM) NO.46 OF 2016.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL ---------------------

¶23

True copy

¶24

P.A to Judge

¶25

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶26

O.P.(KAT)No.78 of 2016

¶27

-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶30

This Original Petition came to be filed challenging the interim order dated 13.6.2016, whereby the earlier order passed by the Tribunal granting interim stay was varied/modified to the extent that the disengagement or engagement of fresh hands as daily wage driver in the service of the 4^th respondent Panchayat will be 'subject to the result of the O.A.' pending before the Tribunal.

¶31

The case projected by the petitioner is that he was

¶32

engaged by the 4^th respondent as driver on daily wages and was serving the Panchayat right from 13.2.2009. It is stated that the appointment was based on a selection; but the service of the applicant was not regularized. Steps were being pursued by the Panchayat to displace the petitioner and to appoint somebody else of their choice. It was at a time, when steps were being pursued by the Government to have the service regularized in respect of similarly situated persons in various local authorities and it was on knowing the course and events

¶33

O.P.(KAT)No.78 of 2016

¶34

¶35

in this regard, that the petitioner who was serving the Panchayat for quite long, was sought to be displaced by appointing somebody. Apprehending adverse course of action, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.46/2016 wherein an interim order of stay was passed on 13.1.2016. The interim order subsequently extended on 9.6.2016 by a period of one month and thereafter it came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 13.6.2016. On the said date, in spite of the fact that the Panchayat had not filed any counter affidavit/reply statement and absolutely for no reason, the said order was vacated/modified making it subject to the result of the O.A.; as per Ext.P3 order dated 13.6.2016, which made the petitioner feel aggrieved and hence the challenge.

¶36

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 21^st of June, 2016, urgent notice on admission to the 4^th respondent was ordered by speed post, also ordering Ext.P3 order to be kept in abeyance till the next date of posting. It is accordingly listed before this Court today, after completion of service of notice to the 4^th respondent. The 4^th

¶37

respondent/Panchayat has come forward by filing

¶38

O.P.(KAT)No.78 of 2016

¶39

¶40

I.A.No.812/2016 producing a copy of the proceedings dated 16.6.2016 putting an end to the service of the petitioner and as to getting back the key of the vehicle concerned; which was served upon the petitioner as borne by the endorsement thereon; copy of which has been produced as Ext.R4(a). The 4^th respondent has sought for a clarification as to how the interim order passed by this Court is to be given effect to; as to whether the person by name Saji.K.E., who is stated as engaged subsequently could be permitted to continue or whether the petitioner herein has to be brought back. It is also pointed out that the person by name Saji.K.E. who was subsequently selected and appointed in the place of the petitioner had already been impleaded in the party array before the Tribunal, where he is shown as the additional 5^th respondent; despite which he has not been impleaded in the party array in the present Original Petition. The petitioner has now come up with I.A.No.827/2016 seeking to implead Mr.Saji.K.E. [the additional 5^th respondent before the Tribunal] as the additional 5^th respondent herein as well, stating that it was only an inadvertent omission.

¶41

O.P.(KAT)No.78 of 2016

¶42

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶44

petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Panchayat.

¶45

On going through the proceedings filed by the Panchayat, it is seen that the person by name Saji.K.E got impleaded in the proceedings before the Tribunal and he had insisted to vacate the interim stay already granted. It was accordingly, that the parties were heard and the interim order passed by the Tribunal earlier was modified as per Ext.P3 order dated 13.6.2016. The name of Mr.Saji.K.E. is clearly shown as the additional 5^th respondent in the said proceedings. This Court cannot but deprecate the course and proceedings pursued by the petitioner in not having impleaded the person by name Saji.K.E. in the party array before pressing the matter before this Court and in succeeding in getting an interim order to have the order kept in abeyance, at least till the next date of posting. The conduct of the petitioner is also liable to be deprecated, in so far as despite receipt of copy of the proceedings dated 16.6.2016 marked as Ext.R4(a) served by the Panchayat upon the petitioner, it has not been produced

¶46

O.P.(KAT)No.78 of 2016

¶47

¶48

along with O.P., nor is there any mention as to the same anywhere in the O.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were prepared on 16.6.2016 and on that day, Ext.R4(a) was not in the hands of the petitioner and hence there was omission to have it incorporated in the O.P. We find it difficult to accept the said version; more so since the O.P. came to be filed before this Court only 4 days thereafter, i.e., on 20^th of June, 2016.

¶49

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there was every reason for the Tribunal to have passed Ext.P3 order. However, by virtue of the clear stipulation therein, the rights and interests of all concerned are taken care of and the same has been made subject to the result of the O.A.

¶50

Since the matter is still pending consideration before the Tribunal, we do not intend to express anything with regard to the merits or as to the rights or relative claims and interest to continue in service or to get regularization based on the norm/scheme, if any, and it is for the Tribunal to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders.

¶51

O.P.(KAT)No.78 of 2016

¶52

¶53

The O.P. does not contain any tenable ground to call for interference. It fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the date of settling the pleadings (having stated as effected on 16.6.2016), we reluctantly refrain from imposing cost upon the petitioner.

¶54

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶55

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶56

skj

¶57

True copy P.A to Judge

Harinathan T.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinathan T.K 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The General Secretary, Workers' Congress Vs the Manager, Madupetty Estate & Another

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Rajeev V.K

Ncc Group Unit Run Canteen Employees Association Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs T.K. Surendran

Shibu Mathew Vs Ouseph Devasia & Another

Sri. Jayakumar C.K Vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research