Partly allowed

Ajayakumar.J v. the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Kerala HC1 Dec 2016WP(C)/15625/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that since the petitioner faced only a censure penalty and other proceedings were dropped, the promotion decision should ignore those proceedings. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion to Manager Grade-III and higher posts backdated to 2010 within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion to Manager Grade-III and higher posts, taking specific note of the junior's 2010 promotion, within two months.

Ajayakumar.J Vs the Kerala State Financial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15625 of 2015 (C) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AJAYAKUMAR.J,

¶8

MANAGER, GRADE III, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES (K.S.F.E), REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, HEAD OFFICE BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR 680020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, HEAD OFFICE BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR 680020.

¶13

3. SURESH BABU V, MANAGER, GRADE II, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., (KSFE), KADAKKAL BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 & 2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

WP(C).No. 15625 of 2015 (C)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

----------------------P1- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED RECRUITMENT RULES.

¶21

P2- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CONSENSUS/SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES.

¶22

P3- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.6/08(PA) DATED 10.1.2008. P4- A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2014.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶28

W.P(C).No. 15625 of 2015

¶29

Dated this the 1^st December, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

¶32

“(i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order commanding respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the cadre of Manager GradeII w.e.f from the date on which the 3^rd respondent was promoted to the said post and to disburse the consequential monitory benefits arising there from;

¶33

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Manager Grade-II w.e.f from the date on which the 3^rd respondent was promoted to the said post in 2010 and also for the consequential monitory benefits flowing out there from the arrears and interest;

¶34

(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner is entitled for promotions to the cadres of Manager, Grade-IV, Manager, Grade-III, Manager, Grade-II and Chief Manager on such dates when he became eligible for promotion in terms of the provisions of Exhibits P1 and P2.”

¶35

It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service of

¶36

the 1^st respondent while working as Manager Grade-III. He had been appointed in the 1^st respondent as Junior Assistant on 25.5.1983. He was promoted as Senior Assistant in 1989 and as

¶37

¶38

WP(C).15625/15

¶39

Special Grade Assistant in 1991. He entered the managerial cadre on being promoted as Assistant Manager in the year 1993. He was later promoted as Junior Manager (Manager Grade-IV) and joined duty on 1.1.2002. He was later appointed as Manager Grade-III on 1.1.2007.

¶40

The contention raised by the petitioner is that in terms of Exhibits P1 and P2, which are the Recruitment Rules and the bipartite settlement respectively, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Junior Manager (Manager Grade-IV) in 1996, which promotion was granted to him only in 2002. He further states that he was promoted as Manager Grade-III in 2007 and continued as such and retired from service. It is stated that his junior, who is shown below him in Exhibit P3, was promoted as Manager GradeII in 2010 and therefore, he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Manager Grade-II with effect from the date when his junior was promoted. He contends that he had been submitting representations before the 2^nd respondent and Exhibit P4 is the last of such representations. Since he has already retired from service, he seeks that his claim for promotion should be considered by the 2^nd respondent at least with effect from the date when his junior was promoted.

¶41

¶42

WP(C).15625/15

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

¶44

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 contending that the petitioner had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings by memo of charges dated 19.12.2008, 14.1.2010 and 10.10.2014. This was the reason for non consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion. However, it is stated in the counter affidavit that two of the memo of charges did not result in any penalty being imposed and the said disciplinary proceedings were dropped before the petitioner retired from service. In respect of one memo of charges dated 25.6.2014, a punishment of censure was imposed on the petitioner. The pendency of the disciplinary proceedings is cited as the reason for non consideration of the claim raised by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Manager and Manager Grade-III and further promotion in accordance with the seniority.

¶45

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in

¶46

¶47

WP(C).15625/15

¶48

Exhibit P3 provisional seniority list, the petitioner was included as serial No.59 among the officers in the cadre of Manager Grade-III while the 3^rd respondent was serial No.61. The 3^rd respondent had been promoted as Manager Grade-II in 2010. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner, who was admittedly senior to the 3^rd respondent, is entitled to promotion at least with effect from the date when his junior was promoted. It is further contended that the petitioner's claim for promotion should also be considered without considering the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, since the disciplinary proceedings were subsequently dropped and no penalty, except censure in one case, had been imposed on him.

¶49

In view of the fact that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is specifically stated that apart from a penalty of censure, no other penalty had been imposed on the petitioner, I am of the view that the claim raised by the petitioner for promotion should be considered by respondents 1 and 2 without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

¶50

Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the claim raised by the petitioner for promotion to the post of

¶51

¶52

WP(C).15625/15

¶53

Manager Grade-III and to higher posts taking specific note of the fact that the petitioner's junior had already been promoted in the year 2010 to the post of Manager Grade-II. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2^nd respondent within a period of two

¶54

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶56

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶57

vgs6/12

Ajayakumar.J v. the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayakumar.J v. the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh.K Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Prakashan Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Sreedharan Nair Vs Kerala Water Authaority

Dr.K.Jyothish Kumar Vs the University of Kerala

Dr.M.v.Narayanan Vs the Central University of Kerala

O.Malathy Vs State of Kerala