Disposed

P.Mohanan v. the State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC21 Dec 2016WP(C)/32411/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court raised no objection to the petitioner's claim that the Government order granting exemption from rules to regularize another employee affects his seniority. The petitioner must be heard before the Government varies the order. The matter must be considered within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Government is directed to consider the petitioner's objection after hearing the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, and the 5th respondent.

P.Mohanan Vs the State of Kerala & Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 32411 of 2009 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

P.MOHANAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PANNIYODAN HOUSE, MEETHALAPUNNAD, PUNNAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD.(RAIDCO), KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD., (RAIDCO) KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT.

¶14

5. K.V.VENU, UNSKILLED WORKER (HG) AGRL. WORKSHOP, REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD. (RAIDCO), KANNOTHUMCHAL.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.V.ANANDAN R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 32411 of 2009 (V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.05.1996 OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, RAIDCO.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.01.2007 OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAIDCO.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.05.1990 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES, TVM.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. G2/EST/01/2008-2009 DATED 13.01.2009.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.03.2009 IN W.P(C).NO. 7625/2009. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2009 IN W.P(C).NO. 7625/2009. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 37/2007/CO.OP DATED 12.01.2007. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.09.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF CATEGORY WISE SENIORITY LIST OF EMPLOYEES PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 31.10.2009.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 32411 of 2009

¶33

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

1.This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order issued under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, “the Rules”).

¶36

2.By Ext.P7, the Government ordered that the 3^rd respondent shall be exempted from the provision of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 183 and Rule 186 of the Rules for the limited purpose of enabling the 3^rd respondent to regularize the appointment of the 5^th respondent as Workshop Assistant/Rubber Roller Mechanic in the service of the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that the seniority of the petitioner is affected by the said regularization. It is also pointed out that the 5^th respondent is not a qualified person. The petitioner's main contention is that the petitioner ought to have been heard before taking such a decision

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 32411 of 2009

¶38

..2..

¶39

by the Government.

¶40

3.Having considered the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner raises any objection to Ext.P7, the Government shall consider such objection after hearing the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent and the 5^th respondent. It is open to the Government to vary Ext.P7, if so warranted, after hearing all persons concerned. Needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the objection from the petitioner.

¶41

4.The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

¶42

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶43

bka/-

P.Mohanan v. the State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mohanan v. the State of Kerala & Others

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

M.N. Raghavan Vs Sri. Anil Kumar

Rajendran Vs G K Suresh Kumar

Gopala Krishnan.D Vs the General Manager

Meerankutty Vs Labour Court

Sree Anjaneya Charitable Trust Vs Sri. Bhanu Pratap Sharma

Suresh Vs State of Kerala