Allowed

The Managing Director v. Ammini Amma.M.P

Kerala HC30 Nov 2016RP/793/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a review petition filed by the Kerala Water Authority. The Court recalled the impugned judgment dated 17-11-2015 which had directed the Authority to consider the petitioner for promotion in the departmental quota. The Court held that the earlier judgment was in error as the specific direction was not intended to mandate promotion under the departmental quota.

What did the court decide?

The judgment in W.P.(C) No.22979 of 2012 dated 17-11-2015 is recalled.

The Managing Director Vs Ammini Amma.M.P — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 793 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 22979/2012 DATED 17-11-2015)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT :

¶8

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶9

BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT :

¶11

1. AMMINI AMMA.M.P., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KWA QUARTERS, OPP. PARVATHY MILLS, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶12

2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶14

R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶18

--------------------------------------------------------------------R.P.No.793 of 2016 in W.P.(C).No.22979 of 2012-V

¶19

--------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The review petition is filed by the respondent-Kerala

¶22

Water Authority, on the ground that there was no direction in Exhibit P14 to consider the writ petitioner's promotion under the Departmental quota, treating her service to have commenced from 17.05.1986, as found in paragraph 4 of the judgment under review.

¶23

The writ petitioner, who was appointed on 07.05.1986 and terminated from service by order dated 25.01.1990, was later reinstated in service from 14.01.1997 as per the Division Bench judgment. Subsequently, by Exhibit P14 judgment all consequential benefits were directed to be granted. The petitioner was also granted such benefits.

¶24

The writ petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No.22979 of 2012, wherein the writ petitioner sought for promotion as Assistant Engineer considering her appointment to be on 07.05.1986. In fact, the writ petitioner had been appointed directly as Assistant Engineer on 04.01.2003. The claim of the petitioner was that she ought to have been considered for such direct recruitment in 1993

¶25

itself, when she was out of employment. When she was reinstated

¶26

RP.793 of 2016 in WP(C).22979 of 2012

¶27

¶28

and her consequential benefits granted by Exhibit P14, she is entitled to such consideration in the departmental quota, is the prayer; which was allowed. The review is filed on the ground that the appointment under the departmental quota is a direct recruitment; and is not a promotion as contemplated in Exhibit P14 judgment.

¶29

On a reading of Exhibit P14, it is clear that the writ

¶30

petitioner was only directed to be granted promotions due to her and there cannot be a direction as sought for; which the petitioner would have been entitled if the petitioner had continued in service. The selection made in 1993 was for direct appointment of departmental candidates as Assistant Engineer. This was not the purport of the direction granting all consequential benefits. Hence, the finding in the judgment that the writ petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion in the departmental quota is an error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment in the writ petition, dated 17.11.2015 is recalled.

¶31

Review petition allowed.

¶32

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶33

vku/-

¶34

[ true copy ]

The Managing Director v. Ammini Amma.M.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Ammini Amma.M.P

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

Sunitha Suraj and Others Vs Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthap

Principal, Catholicate College Vs Shri. M.R.Unni

Rajeswari Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakas

Nazar Vs Reghuraman

K.K. Viswanathan Master Vs State of Kerala

Ammini Amma M.P. Vs Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority