Disposed

Suseel.S v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC19 Dec 2016WP(C)/37704/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board regarding cadre strength. It held that since petitioners were still in service, no further orders were needed, only a liberty to challenge the impugned order or subsequent orders.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to challenge the impugned order on cadre strength or any subsequent orders threatening their employment.

Suseel.S Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 37704 of 2009 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SUSEEL.S,SENIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF SPECIAL OFFICER-REVENUE, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2. BRIJIL.M.V,SENIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF

¶9

SPECIAL OFFICER-REVENUE VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. S.BAHU, PRESIDENT, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KERALA ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION(INTUC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

4. CHARLS.N.J, METER READER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CENTRAL,ERNAKULAM.

¶12

5. ANTONY SHAIJU.K.V, SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADVS.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.K.S.ANIL SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 37704 of 2009 (G)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1: COPY OF B.O.(FB) NO.1460/2009 (CP/R&P/PIG.1/MODEL SECTION/2009-10) DT.04.06.2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF B.O.(FB) NO.1380/2003 (PSI/2946/2001) DATED 30.09. 2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES LONG TERM SETTLEMENT - 2007 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE TRADE UNIONS AND THE KSE BOARD. EXT.P4: COPY OF B.O.(FB) NO.2435/2009 (RC/1) TRANSFER SCHEME/2009 DT.22/09/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF QUESTION DT.08.09.2009 AND ITS REPLY DT.07.10.2009 RECEIVED UNDER R.I.ACT. EXT.P6: COPY OF QUESTION ALONG WITH REPLY DT.18.07.2009 RECEIVED UNDER R.I.ACT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶29

¶30

W.P.C.No.37704 of 2009

¶31

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioners are working in the various offices of the Kerala State Electricity Board in the designations Senior Assistants and Meter reader or cashier. All the petitioners were recruited into service as per the advice of the Public Service Commission. They, therefore, claim that they are entitled to all the benefits attached to a member of a service in a particular cadre as per Rule 2 of General Rules of K.S & S.S.R.

¶34

The immediate provocation for the petitioners in filing this writ petition was that the Board issued an order relating to reorganization of functional responsibilities and duties and responsibilities of staff, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P1 in this writ petition. In Ext.P1, the categories of posts of senior assistant, cashier and meter reader was not shown to have a definite cadre strength, but were shown to be 'as per requirement'. It is this that prompted the petitioners to file this writ petition apprehending that they would be retrenched if

¶35

W.P.C.No.37704/2009

¶36

¶37

there was no requirement in future. Their essential contention is that if a proper cadre strength is not notified, which should be a definite number, then their employment would always be under threat of termination since Ext.P1 merely says that the strength of the cadre will be as per requirement. There is sufficient force in the petitioners' contention. However, since I see that the this is a writ petition that was filed as early as in 2009 and since it is submitted by the counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are still in service and that they have not been terminated even as of today, I do not think there is any requirement of passing any further orders in this case at this distance of time. This is more so because I am not aware of the developments that have happened subsequent to Ext.P1 and as to whether there has been any modification to its terms thereafter.

¶38

All that is now sufficient would be to allow petitioners liberty to challenge either Ext.P1, if it has not undergone any modification, or any further orders subsequent to Ext.P1 relating to cadre strength, if they are operated in any manner to cause any threat to their employment and to challenge the same in

¶39

W.P.C.No.37704/2009

¶40

¶41

appropriate proceedings before appropriate authorities, if they are so advised in future. Reserving such liberty to the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

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

¶43

costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶46

TRUE COPY

¶47

P.A TO JUDGE

¶48

Suseel.S v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suseel.S v. Kerala State Electricity 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

Jijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T.R.Jayagopal Vs Institute of Human Resources Development

Gopakumar.T Vs State of Kerala and Others

Lijiya.M Vs Director, Kerala State Open School

State of Kerala Vs N.K.Babu

Dr.Clement Lopez Vs State of Kerala