Disposed

C.K.Purushothaman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2016WP(C)/24307/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a driver regularized in 1999, sought correction of a later order limiting his benefits to 2011. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representation within two months after allowing a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation on regularization and pay fixation within 2 months after a hearing.

C.K.Purushothaman Vs 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2016/3RD SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24307 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, DRIVER, INDIAN INSTITUE OF HANDLOOM TECHNOLOGY, THOTTADA, P O KIZHUNNA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670007.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES(C)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF HANDLOOM TECHNOLOGY, THOTTADA, P O KIZHUNNA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670007.

¶12

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIAS R2 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 24307 of 2016 (K)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO 521/2010/ID DTD 16/4/2010
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD 21/5/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT)NO 317/2011/ID DTD 28/2/2011
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 11/7/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 24307 of 2016

¶27

==================

¶28

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The case projected in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:-

¶31

That the writ petitioner had entered provisional service of the 2^nd respondent Indian Institute of Handloom Technology on 1.10.1997 as driver and was subsequently regularized in service. The grievance projected by the writ petitioner is that even though he was regularized in service with effect from the date of entry in service (viz.1.10.1997), the benefits were granted to him only from 28.2.2011. It is averred that the 2^nd respondent Indian Institute of Handloom Technology was originally established by the 1^st respondent State as the Institute of Handloom & Textile Technology and was registered as a society in the year 1987 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. That thereafter it was re-nomenclatured as the Indian Institute of Handloom Technology, which is said to be amalgamated with the various

¶32

W.P.(C).24307/16 - : 2 :-

¶33

Indian Institutes of Handloom Technology functioning under the guidelines of the Indian Institutes of Handloom Technology (IIHTS) under the Government of India in the Ministry of Textiles. It is pointed out that the 2^nd respondent Institute is governed by a Board of Governors consisting of the Minister for Industries of the State Government, as its Chairman, and the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala in the Industries Department as its Vice Chairman and its Executive Director as Convenor. That it has nine members ranging from Deputy Secretaries to Finance and Industries Departments of the Government of Kerala, Managing Director of Handtex, Managing Director of Handweev, Director of Technical Education and representatives of AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education and Development Commissioner for Handlooms attached to the Government of India in the Ministry of Textiles. Thus it is contended that various Governmental instrumentalities have deep and pervasive control over the affairs and functioning of the 2^nd respondent Institute and that hence it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. It is further averred by the petitioner that he was regularized in service from 1.10.1997 as per Ext.P-1 GO(Rt)

¶34

W.P.(C).24307/16 - : 3 :-

¶35

No.521/2010/ID dated 16.4.2010 issued by the 1^st respondent State Government and that later the 2^nd respondent Executive Director of the Indian Institute of Handloom Technology, Kannur, has fixed the pay of the petitioner with effect from 1.10.1997 applying all pay revision orders except that of 2014. However, by Ext.P-3 G.O(Rt) No.317/2011/ID dated 28.2.2011 the date of regularisation of the petitioner was limited from 28.2.2011 instead of 1.10.1997. That aggrieved by the restriction imposed in Ext.P-3, the petitioner had filed Ext.P-4 representation dated 11.7.2016 before the 1^st respondent State Government and that the same is pending. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get regularization from 1.10.1997 on par with other incumbents working in similar posts. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has instituted the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

¶36

“1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading the Ext.P-3 and quash the same to the extent it limits and accommodates the petitioner in the newly created post of driver on regular basis w.e.f. 28.02.2011.

¶37

1. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner as done in Exhibit P2 implementing 1997, 2004, 2009 and 2014 pay revision orders applicable to Government servants and to disburse all arrears of pay to the petitioner within a time frame.

¶38

W.P.(C).24307/16 - : 4 :-

¶39

1. A direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 representation submitted by the petitioner after hearing him within a time frame.”

¶40

Apart from urging the various submissions and

¶41

contentions of the petitioner, as made out on the basis of the pleadings and materials available on record, Sri.P.M.Pareeth, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also submitted that this Court may direct the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government to render a considered decision on Ext.P-4 representation, without much delay, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶42

Heard Sri.P.M.Pareeth, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent State Government and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Indian Institute of Handloom Technology, Kannur.

¶43

In the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings and materials available on record and more so particularly in the light of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner for necessary direction from this Court to ensure that the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government takes a

¶44

W.P.(C).24307/16 - : 5 :-

¶45

considered decision on Ext.P-4 representation, it is ordered that the competent authority of the 1^st respondent State Government will take up Ext.P-4 representation for consideration without much delay and will render a considered decision thereon, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, either in person or through his authorised representative, if any, without much delay and at any rate, within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The submissions and contentions urged by the petitioner should be specifically adverted to and considered while rendering the considered decision as directed above.

¶46

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶47

sdk+

¶48

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶49

///True Copy///

¶50

P.S. to Judge

C.K.Purushothaman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Purushothaman 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

K.Santhoshkumar Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Muhammed Ashique C.S Vs State of Kerala

Sajan V.S Vs Fact

G.Mohandas Vs Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Preejith M.P. Vs the Corporate Manager

Simi Rahim P.A. Vs Kerala State Electiricty Board