Remanded

Manilal K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2016WP(C)/35365/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a petitioner's claim for regularization and retirement benefits despite being a daily wage labourer initially. It found the impugned order erroneous as the petitioner was appointed under the relevant service rule. The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner to be afforded a hearing and the competent secretary directed to consider the case in light of Ext.P2, Ext.P4, and relevant judgments within three months.

Manilal K 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 35365 of 2010 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MANILAL K, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KAMALASANAN, ALUNILKKUNNATHIL HOUSE, THAZHAM P.O., MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶9

SRI.R.RANJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT (A), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

4. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶15

R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA

¶16

SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 35365 of 2010 (U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 13.8.1996.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.5.1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 4.11.1999.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.43-2007-SWD DATED 9.8.2007.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B15652/2007 DATED 12.9.2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE ORDER BY WHICH SIMILARLY SITUATED TWO WORKERS WERE REINSTATED AND REGULARISED VIDE ORDER KWA/JB/E.1/13362/2003 DATED 30.3.2010.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.9.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2007 IN WPC.NO.33213/2007.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 7.8.2008.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER NO.413/2008/SWD DATED 10.10.2008.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.1.2007 IN W.A.NO.1601/2006.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

P.A TO JUDGE

¶26

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶27

¶28

W.P.C.No.35365 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is a physically handicapped person with 45% disability. This is evident from the copy of the disability certificate which is appended to the writ petition as Ext.P1. Petitioner claims that he had registered himself with the employment exchange and that he was appointed as per Ext.P2 order of the Executive Engineer of the Water Authority, as a Masdoor in the services of Kerala Water Authority under the provisions of Section 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR.

¶32

The petitioner's grievance is that even though he worked for 179 days in the first spell as per Ext.P2, he was not thereafter re-engaged or considered for regularization as was directed to be done by the Government in its order dated 09.08.2007, copy of which is exhibited as Ext.P4. Petitioner impugns Ext.P10 order which was issued by the Additional Secretary to Government wherein it was held that he would not be entitled to the benefit of Ext.P4 because he was not appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 as being completely erroneous and being issued without

¶33

W.P.C.No.35365 of 2010

¶34

¶35

proper application of mind.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1^st and 4^th respondents.

¶37

On an examination of Ext.P10, it is obvious that the benefit as per Ext.P4 has been denied to the petitioner only because it is alleged that he was not appointed under 9(a)(i) of the KS and SSR and that he was appointed only as a daily wage labourer. This does not appear to be correct even on a cursory glance of Ext.P2. As I have noticed above, Ext.P2 makes it clear that the petitioner was appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR. If that be so, the tenor of Ext.P10 that the petitioner was appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS and SSR is untenable and cannot be sustained.

¶38

I think this is a matter in which the competent authority has to have a re-look taking into account Exts.P2 and P4 orders as also the judgments of this Court exhibited as Ext.P11 and also the judgment reported as Binu v. State of Kerala [2003 (2) KLT 207] and to consider the claim of the petitioner in the specific perspective as to whether the

¶39

W.P.C.No.35365 of 2010

¶40

¶41

petitioner, who was obviously appointed under Rule 9(a)(i), can be given the benefit of Ext.P4. I am refraining from making any further orders because I see that over six years have elapsed since this writ petition was filed and no interim orders have been issued.

¶42

In such circumstances, I direct the competent secretary of the 1^st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Exts.P2 and P4 as also the judgments referred to above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶43

In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer the respective costs.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶47

TRUE COPY

¶48

P.A TO JUDGE

¶49

Manilal K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manilal K 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.v.Haridasan Vs the Secretary

Pavitran Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Sadanandan Vs the Geologist

M.R.Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

A.N.Kishor Kumar Vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Anr.

Jijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala