Dismissed

Yohannan.K. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016RP/692/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a review petition. The court rejected the argument that an employee reinstated to provisional service after paying a fine could claim regularization benefits under a notification based on service status on the notification date. The lower court's finding was deemed in accordance with law and no error was apparent.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; status quo ante maintained pursuant to the impugned judgment.

Yohannan.K. Vs the 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 SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 692 of 2016 ()

¶6

---------------------WP(C) 18054/2016 of THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶8

YOHANNAN.K.,

¶9

S/O CHACKO KUNJAPPI, VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, NANAKKALA P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE

¶11

SMT.MINI GOPINATH SMT.MEERA GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WP(C):

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶15

3. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶16

4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MAVELIKKARA DEPOT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, 688 001.

¶17

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

RP.No. 692 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE I:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT COURT DT 2/9/2014 IN	OF THIS HONOURABLE WPC 23140/2014.
ANNEXURE II:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 4/8/2014 IN WPC 1	OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT 9752/204.
ANNEXURE III:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 12/1/2014 IN WA N	OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT O. 101/2014.
ANNEXURE IV:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO 14/3/2014 OF THE R3.	. PL16/014915/12 DT
ANNEXURE V:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO 9/04/2014 OF THE R3.	. PL16/014915/12 DT
ANNEXURE VI:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO 14/8/2014 OF THE R3.	. PL16/014915/12 DT
ANNEXURE VII:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO 25/7/2014 OF THE R3.	. PL16/014915/12 DT

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :	NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶29

R.P. No.692 of 2016

¶30

in W.P.(C) No.18054 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the judgment dated 30.06.2016. Review is sought for by the petitioner on the ground that the issue with respect to the non-availability of the petitioner in the services of the respondent Corporation as on 22.12.2011 was considered by this Court in various judgments, and has held that if the employee has completed 10 years of provisional service, he is entitled to get the benefit of the notification dated 22.12.2011. However, while the judgment was rendered, the judgments were brought to my notice, but the non-entitlement of the petitioner was found on the basis of a specific term contained under the notification dated 22.12.2011, that, in order to get the benefit of the said notification, an employee should be in service as on that date.

¶34

Admittedly, petitioner was not in service when the notification was issued. But, I find, he was reinstated to provisional service after payment of fine on a subsequent date.

¶35

¶36

R.P. No.692 of 2016

¶37

Therefore, I held that by virtue of the provisions of the notification, petitioner is not entitled to get regularization, and the finding rendered in the impugned order, taking note of the said stipulation, was in accordance with law, and also taking note of the fact that the said stipulation was not under challenge in the writ petition.

¶38

Therefore, I do not find any error apparent on the face of

¶39

the record or other illegalities in the judgment, so as to review the same. Accordingly, the review fails and it is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶41

//true copy//

¶42

P.S. to Judge

¶43

St/10.11.2016

Yohannan.K. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yohannan.K. v. the 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

K.K.Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnana Pillai Vs the District Police Chief

Francis Cleetus Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Vinod Venkidachalam Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Hussain Vs the Managing Authority, Kerala Water Authority

Athulya J.R. Vs State of Kerala