Dismissed

Jayasree S. v. Coir Board

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016WA/1904/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order in a service dispute. The appellant, a senior sales employee, sought conversion to LDC in the Administrative Stream with retrospective effect, arguing injustice after juniors' absorption was approved. The Division Bench upheld the lower court's finding that the appellant had slept over her rights and the delay disen

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 17.01.2014 stands discharged. The writ appeal is dismissed.

Jayasree S. Vs Coir Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 1904 of 2013 () IN WP(C).14278/2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14278/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-07-2013

¶7

APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION:

¶8

JAYASREE S. COIR BOARD, COIR BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD COCHIN-682016. (WORMING AS SALES PERSON0 RESIDING AT PAVITHRAM, MANJELIPADA, EROOR WEST P.O. THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682306.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION:

¶11

COIR BOARD ERNAKUJLAM, COIR BOARD, M.G.ROAD KOCHI-682016. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

Addl.2. P.K.LALITHA UD CLERK, HEAD OFFICE ERNAKULAM, EM SECTION II COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD ERNAKULAM.

¶13

Addl.3. V.SHIBULAL UD CLERK, REGIONAL OFFICE COIR BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE, DILEEP BHAVAN HOUSE NO.XII/234, NEAR MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL ATTINGAL.P.O., TRIVANDRUM -695 101.

¶14

ADDL. R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/08/2014 IN IA.No.697/2014.

¶15

SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

APPENDIX TO W.A.NO.1904 OF 2013

¶18

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

NIL

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 13.05.2005. ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 10.07.2006. ANNEXURE R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.06.2007. ANNEXURE R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 15.06.2007. ANNEXURE R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 29.08.2007. ANNEXURE R1(f): TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 10.07.2006. ANNEXURE R1(g): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.08.2008. ANNEXURE R1(h): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.01.2010.

¶22

// True Copy// PA to Judge

¶23

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &

¶24

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.1904 of 2013

¶25

Dated this the 19^th day of January 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Ashok Bhushan, CJ

¶28

This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16/07/2013 dismissing W.P.C.No.14278/2013. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment, has come up in the appeal. The writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for the following reliefs:

¶29

“i) issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the respondent to take appropriate steps to allow conversion to the petitioner as LDC in the Administrative Stream under the respondent and the consequent promotion reckoning her seniority of 12 years.

¶30

ii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion as LDC and the consequent promotion reckoning her seniority of 12 years service under the respondent.

¶31

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem

¶32

W.A.No.1904/2013

¶33

¶34

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶35

The writ petitioner was working as a Sales Person under the Coir Board. She had filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent to take appropriate steps to allow conversion to her as Lower Division Clerk (for short 'LDC') in the Administrative Stream under the respondent and consequential promotion reckoning her seniority of 12 years. Petitioner's grievance is that although she was appointed on 24/06/1999 and her probation declared on 23/06/2001, two of her juniors, who were similarly appointed as Sales Persons, were given promotion to the post of LDC in the Administrative Stream. The petitioner, in this context, made representations Exts.P3 to P5, with regard to which a communication dated 04/08/2009, Ext.P6 was issued informing her that her request for conversion of appointment to the post of LDC has been acceded to and the conversion of her appointment as LDC will be effective from the date of arising next vacancy of LDC against direct recruitment quota.

¶36

The petitioner, however, was given promotion in the Sales Division and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent

¶37

W.A.No.1904/2013

¶38

¶39

submits that at present she is working as Sales Manager in UD Grade.

¶40

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent wherein it has been stated that two persons who, according to the petitioner, were appointed as LDC were absorbed in the Administrative Stream on substantive vacancies of direct recruitment quota. Annexures R1(e) and R1(f) are the orders dated 29/08/2007 issued by the 1^st respondent to that effect.

¶41

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is a person who has slept over her rights and she cannot be heard to raise any grievance against conversion of her juniors as LDC in the Administrative Stream especially after their promotion as UDC. The learned Single Judge stated that, after the lapse of seven years, the said challenge cannot be entertained. The appellant, who has also got promotion in the Sales Division, had prayed for conversion into LDC with retrospective effect in the Administrative Stream. The appointment of two persons, who were junior to the petitioner, as LDC in the Administrative Stream against the substantive vacancy earmarked for direct recruitment quota in 2007 was sought to be

¶42

W.A.No.1904/2013

¶43

¶44

questioned in the writ petition filed in the year 2013. The learned Single Judge did not commit any error in not entertaining such challenge. The case of the appellant that there are more avenues of promotion in the Administrative Division, cannot be said to be a ground for permitting her conversion in the post of LDC with retrospective effect from the date on which, according to her, her juniors were directly appointed. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶45

Hence this writ appeal is dismissed. The interim order dated 17/01/2014 stands discharged.

¶46

(sd/-)

¶47

(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶48

True Copy PA to Judge

¶49

jsr/20/01/16

Jayasree S. v. Coir Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasree S. v. Coir Board

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

Vijayan Vs a.Basheer

M/S.Southern Field Ventrues Private Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director Vs Sri.G.J.Teggi, the Custodian of Ecologically Fragile Lands and Chief Conservator of Forests

Abdul Rashid Vs the Special Tahsildar (La),Trichur.

C.P Damodaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishna Kurup Vs Dr.M.K.Sasidharan Pillai

Medical Council of India (Mci) Vs v.N.Public Health and Eduational Trust