Allowed

S.Appukuttan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016WP(C)/9533/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's claim to treat his initial appointment in 1981 as regular despite a 1983 objection on contract basis. The court set aside orders denying higher grade and recovery of excess pay, declaring the petitioner entitled to benefits from the date of entry.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 14.12.2010, 24.8.2011, and 17.3.2012 set aside. Petitioner entitled to count service from 27.6.1981 with consequential benefits. Respondents directed to calculate and disburse due benefit

S.Appukuttan Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9533 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, WATCHER, KALARKODE DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SANATHANAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶9

SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.

¶12

2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

¶13

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.

¶14

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶15

AMBALAPPUZHA GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SREE KRISHNA SWAMI TEMPLE, AMBALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 561.

¶16

4. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM ACCOUNTS OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SREE KRISHNA SWAMI TEMPLE, AMBALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 561.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.G.BIJU

¶18

SRI.SAJITH KUMAR KANGHINGHAT SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR, SC, TDB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

WP(C).No. 9533 of 2012 (N)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC 19319/06/MISC.A DATED 17-1-2007 OF THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.2615 DATED 13-12-1990 OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.2684/ROC DATED 18-7-2005 OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, AMBALAPPUZHA GROUP ISSUED TO SRI.K.BIJU.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ROC 97/58/AUDIT DATED 30-8-1983 OF THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, AMBALAPPUZHA, ADDRESSED TO THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, AMBALAPPUZHA.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ROC 1947/87/MISC. DT.3-11-1987 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, AMBALAPPUZHA.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC 133/82 MISC. DATED 1-2-1983 AND ORDER NO.ROC 5990/82/MISC. DATED 24-12-1982 OF THE BOARD.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ROC 41/81/AUDIT DATED 14-12-2010 OF R3.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ROC 12455/11/MISC.A DATED 24-8-2011 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶33

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30-12-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER APPROACHED THE ADALATH CONDUCTED BY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶34

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13-2-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶35

Msv/

¶36

-2-

¶37

-2-

¶38

WP(C).No. 9533 of 2012 (N)

¶39

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ROC 12455/11/MISC.A DATED 17-3-2012 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, AMBALAPPUZHA.

¶40

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ROC 7811/11/EST.I DATED 3-4-2012 OF THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶41

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶47

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 9533 of 2012

¶48

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th October, 2016

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The petitioner was initially appointed as Sankeerthanam on 27.6.1981 in Ambalappuzha Devaswom under the 1^st respondent (Sankeerthanam is a post interchangable with that of Watcher, as is evident from Exhibits P2 and P3). By Exhibit P1 order dated 17.1.2007, the probation of the petitioner in the category of Sankeerthanam was declared with effect from 27.6.1982 and in the category of Watcher with effect from 14.12.1991. By Exhibit P4 dated 30.8.1983, an objection was raised by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Ambalappuzha Devaswom stating that the original appointment of the petitioner was on a contract basis for a period of one year and therefore, the disbursement of pay in the scale of pay was not regular. It was stated that the amounts drawn in excess should be recovered from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had addressed the Devaswom Commissioner with a representation and Exhibit P5 order was passed by the Devaswom Commissioner overruling the objection raised and directing the grant of pay and allowances to the petitioner. The petitioner was being paid all monetary benefits reckoning his date of entry into service as 27.6.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for

¶51

¶52

WP(C).9533/12

¶53

grant of 28 years higher grade. By Exhibit P7 dated 14.12.2010, the Assistant Devaswom Accounts Officer again stated that the petitioner's initial appointment was on a contractual basis and he was not entitled to 28 years higher grade. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P8 representation before the Devaswom Commissioner. By Exhibit P9 communication dated 24.8.2011, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner stated that the mistakes in the fixation of pay of the petitioner should be rectified and excess paid should be recovered. Though the petitioner had preferred Exhibits P10 and P11 representations before the Board, the Board also did not consider the same and confirmed the orders of the Devaswom Commissioner. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition has been filed.

¶54

Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶55

The petitioner contends that he had entered service on 27.6.1981 and his probation was declared in the post of Sankeerthanam with effect from 27.6.1982. The petitioner further contends that Exhibit P6 circular would show that the petitioner's initial appointment was to be treated as regular appointment and that he is entitled to count his service from such date. It is further contended that he was placed in a scale of pay with effect from 26.7.1981 onwards and had been granted all benefits of regular

¶56

¶57

WP(C).9533/12

¶58

appointment from that date. The objection raised in the year 1983 had been overruled by the Commissioner and the entire benefits had also been disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that on the basis of Exhibit P6 circular, he was clearly entitled to placement in the scale of pay from the date of the initial appointment and to all consequential benefits.

¶59

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4 contending that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis with effect from 27.6.1981 in the post of Sankeerthanam. It is stated that this is recorded in the petitioner's service book and that he was appointed in a permanent post with effect from 27.6.1982 and the he is eligible to count the service only with effect from 27.6.1982.

¶60

These contentions cannot be sustained in view of Exhibit P1 order of the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner dated 17.1.2007. By the said order, the petitioner's probation was declared in the post of Sankeerthanam with effect from 27.6.1982. Any earlier recording in his service book would stand modified by such declaration of the probation. It is also noticed that the Board circulars produced by the petitioner as Exhibit P6 clearly contained stipulations that those persons appointed after 1.4.1980 in a scale of pay would be entitled to treat the period from the initial appointment as service for all purposes. It is also provided that even persons appointed on

¶61

¶62

WP(C).9533/12

¶63

consolidated pay on a contract basis after 1.4.1980 are entitled to regularization of such appointment and to consequential placement in a scale of pay. Exhibit P6 also contains the circular dated 1.2.1983 stating that Watchers who were appointed after 1.4.1980 are also entitled to scale of pay with effect from the date of their initial appointment.

¶64

It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that Kazhakam employees are not entitled to such benefits. However, there is no recital either in the counter affidavit or in any of the documents on record in this case that the petitioner is a Kazhakam. Moreover, Exhibits P2 and P3 would go to show that the post of Sankeerthanam in which the petitioner was appointed was interchangeable with that of Watcher and that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P6 circular as it applied to Watchers in the Board. Since the petitioner's initial appointment with effect from 27.6.1981 has been considered by the respondents themselves as regular appointment in a scale of pay and has been taken into account for declaration of his probation, Exhibits P9 and P12 orders are unsustainable.

¶65

In the result, Exhibits P7, P9 and P12 are set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to count his date of entry into service as 27.6.1981 and to draw all benefits consequent thereto. The respondents are directed to calculate the benefits due on account of

¶66

¶67

WP(C).9533/12

¶68

the declaration as given above and to disburse such benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶69

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶70

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶71

vgs24/10

S.Appukuttan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Appukuttan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom 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

V.v.Prabhakaran Vs the Secretary

Manju Azeez Vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Others

M.K.Sudha Bhai Vs the Accountant General (a&E)

O.K.Sivaraman Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Sasidharan Sachu Vs State of Kerala

Nandakumar Vs Issac Varghese