Allowed

M.S.Ramakrishnan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016WP(C)/667/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order imposing financial liability on a retired employee due to the irregular stayal of a contract labourer. The Court found that the electricity board failed to consider the petitioner's contentions regarding service books and article handovers, rendering the imposed liability improper and illegal. The order fixing the penalty was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing liability of Rs.40,259/- was set aside, and the amount was directed to be disbursed to the petitioner within two months.

M.S.Ramakrishnan Vs the Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶4

WP(C).No. 667 of 2007 (D)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

M.S.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

ENGINEER (RETD), ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION,, PONKUNNAM, RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE,, URULIKUNNAM, MADUKKAKUNNU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.KRISHNAN NANDAKUMAR SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR

¶8

SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE), GENERAL KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,, PALAI.

¶13

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,, PONKUNNAM.

¶14

5. K.JOSEPH AUGUSTINE, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, (RTD).,, KAYYALACKAKOM HOUSE,

¶15

PALAI P.O. 6. K.K.SHARMA, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RET), ALUNKAL HOUSE, ELAPPUMKAL, VAZHOOR P.O.

¶16

7. T.S.RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY, BOARD,

¶17

SUB STATION (SUB DIVISION) PALAI. 8. D.CHRISTAPHER, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RETD), C/O.CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL, GENERAL, KERALA

¶18

STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.[DELETED] [8TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 15.02.2016 IN IA 1961/16.] R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.BIJU R6 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU R BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 667 of 2007

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.EBE/57/7/78 DATED 11.12.89. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF MEMO NO.EB1/95-96/537 DATED 22.1.1996. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF LETTER TO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 24.4.97. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.8.97 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF HANDING OVER MEMO DATED 4.11.71. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF MEMO NO.SB-83/74-75 DATED 16.1.76. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 19.3.76 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.22076/97 DATED 20.5.98. EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF LETTER NO.EB5/P/1996-97/321 DATED 19.8.98 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF ORDER NO.PAXI/PPO.20960 DATED 20.8.98. EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.8.98 FROM PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 13.1.2000 SUBMITTED BY ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.5.94 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PALAI. EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF APPEAL DATED 22.10.00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P15: COPY OF ORDER IN O.P.NO.18655/98 DATED 14.11.2005. EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 29.9.06.

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

PS TO JUDGE

¶26

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.667 of 2007

¶28

Dated this the 29^th September, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P16 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Board with respect to fixation of liability on the petitioner, who had retired from service on 31.8.1997. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Division, Ponkunnam on 10.6.1994. One K.K.Parameswaran, a CLR worker, was continuing in service as on the said date. It was later detected that the said CLR worker had attained the age of 55 years as on 30.6.1993. Therefore the petitioner was put on notice and an amount of Rs.21,486/- was fixed as his liability towards the amount drawn as wages by the said CLR worker from 10.6.1994 to 29.8.1997. Further, an amount of Rs.18,723.28 was fixed as liability of the petitioner towards the value of certain missing articles.

¶31

The petitioner contends in this writ petition that the CLR worker was continuing in service when he was posted as Assistant Engineer. Exhibit P1 circular dated 11.12.1989 was issued by the

¶32

¶33

WP(C).667/07

¶34

Deputy Chief Engineer to all circle offices directing furnishing of the consolidation statement showing the details of CLR workers employed in the respective circles. It was only after the petitioner assumed charge that the details of the CLR workers were collected, service book opened and the continuance in service after the age of 55 years of the worker noticed. The services of the said worker was terminated on 30.8.1997. In the above circumstances, imposition of the liability on the petitioner was unwarranted, it is contended. Regarding the further liability of Rs.18,773.28 also, the petitioner contends that he had handed over all the articles mentioned as missing and handing over memos dated 4.11.1971 and 16.1.1976 would clearly go to show that the entire materials had been properly handed over by him. It is contended that these aspects were not considered in Exhibit P16 order, therefore, the said order is illegal and unsustainable.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board as well as the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶36

This Court, by Exhibit P15 judgment dated 14.11.2005 in O.P.No.18655 of 1998, directed the Electricity Board to look into the complaint preferred by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon. However, a perusal of Exhibit P16 would go to show that the

¶37

WP(C).667/07 3

¶38

contentions raised by the petitioner had been adverted to, but they have not been considered in their proper perspective. The only reason stated for confirming liability of Rs.21,486/- on the petitioner on account of overstayal in service of the CLR worker is that the petitioner was the custodian of the service books of the CLR workers under his control. The specific contention of the petitioner that no service book had been opened in respect of the employee in question by the earlier officers and that it was only after he assumed charge that the discrepancy was noticed and service book opened has not even been adverted to in the order under challenge. The contention of the petitioner that the fact that he was responsible for opening service book and for terminating the employees has also not been considered. Further, as regards the liability of Rs.18,773.28, though the petitioner specifically pointed out that Exhibits P5 and P6 memos of handing over charge which were available with the respondents themselves would prove that no articles were pending and the liability imposed could not be supported by any material, the said contention has been brushed aside by stating that the petitioner has not substantiated his claim by producing documents. In any view of the matter, it appears from the documents now produced that the articles in question had actually been handed over by the writ petitioner. There is no contention that the CLR worker had not actually worked during the period in question.

¶39

¶40

WP(C).667/07

¶41

Work had been extracted from him. The question is with regard to the irregular payment due to his overstayal. Since the contentions raised by the petitioner, which the respondent was duty bound to consider in terms of the order of this Court, have not been considered in their proper perspective, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶42

In the above circumstances and in the absence of pleadings on the part of the 1^st respondent, the imposition of liability on the petitioner was improper and illegal. Exhibit P16 order imposing penalty on the liability of the petitioner amounting to Rs.40,259/- is set aside. The said amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner, if the same has not already been disbursed. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶45

vgs29/9

M.S.Ramakrishnan v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Ramakrishnan v. the 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

Abdul Karim Sahib Noushad Vs Suresh Babu T.R.

M.K.Vijayan Vs M/S.Shriram Investments Limited

Chandrashekharan Nair Vs Kesava Pillai and Another

United India Insurance Officer'S Vs Union of India

Amalarpava Mary Vs State of Kerala

Aaditi Anilkumar & Ors. Vs Sut Academy of Medical Sciences & Ors.