Dismissed

The Secretary to Government v. Sri.N.M.Thankachan

Kerala HC10 Aug 2017OP(KAT)/297/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order regularizing a pump operator. The High Court held the Tribunal did not add an irrational 'continuous service' condition contrary to Government norms and set aside the lower forum's delay in appealing via the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition failed and was dismissed. The impugned KAT order upholding regularization stands unaffected.

The Secretary to Government Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶6

OP(KAT).No. 297 of 2017 (Z)

¶7

OA.1141/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

N.M.THANKACHAN, AGED 46, SON OF MATHAI, RESIDING AT NIRAPPEL HOUSE, PULPALLI P.O., WAYANAD, (PIN 673579), NOW WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR, PAKKOM LIFT IRRIGATION PROJECT, ON HR BASIS, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673579, MOB: 9388417940.

¶14

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

OP(KAT).No. 297 of 2017 (Z)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1141/2017 WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/03/2016 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.1141 OF 2005.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V., JJ

¶27

O.P.(KAT)NO.297 OF 2017

¶28

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2017

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶31

Regularisation of service of the applicant as 'SLR worker' in the Irrigation Department (based on Annexure A2 norms fixed by the Government and following the dictum in Annexure A15 order in O.A.No.1210/2013) vide Ext.P3 order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge in this Original Petition filed at the instance of the respondent, State.

¶32

The challenge is mainly based on the contention raised by the petitioners in the reply statement that the respondent was not having continuous service of 10 years from 2001 to 2011 envisaged in Annexure A2, though he was having a total of 2196 days of work to his credit, from 1993 onwards. The circumstances under which regularisation could be granted as per Annexure A2 have been adverted to by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of Ext.P3, which stipulates that: (i) as on 1/1/2011 the person concerned

¶33

O.P.(KAT)NO.297 OF 2017 2

¶34

should have completed a minimum of 500 days service; (ii) as on the said date, 10 years service should have been completed and (iii) the candidate should not have crossed the age of 58 years. Regularisation was denied by the Department stating that the applicant was not having 'continuous service'. This was challenged before the Tribunal pointing out that, it was an 'added condition', which was not there in Annexure A2. Reliance was also sought to be placed on Annexure A-15 verdict passed under similar circumstances in O.A.No.1210/2013.

¶35

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal held that the stand of the Department that there should be 'continuous service' was something more and beyond the terms of Annexure A2, which was irrational in all respects. It was also observed that no such added condition should be read into Annexure A2. The verdict passed by the Tribunal in exactly under similar circumstance in O.A.No.1210/2013 (copy of which was produced as Annexure A15) was also adverted to and the relevant paragraph of the said verdict was extracted in para 6 of Ext.P3. It was accordingly found that the claimant was entitled to have the benefit of regularisation, which was ordered in the following terms:

¶36

“ 7. Therefore, following the dictum laid down in Annexure A15, we hold that the applicant is entitled for regularisation. Annexure

¶37

O.P.(KAT)NO.297 OF 2017

¶38

¶39

A14 is therefore set aside. The respondents are directed to regularise the applicant as SLR worker with effect from 16.1.2013 within two months from the date of receipt of a certified of this order. Similar to the directions contained in Annexure A15, the applicant shall be eligible for notional service benefits from 16.1.2013, but arrears only from two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if the regularisation is delayed beyond that.”

¶40

After hearing the learned Government Pleader at length,

¶41

we find that there is no case for the petitioners that Annexure A15 verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1210/2013 was subjected to the challenge from the part of the State/Department. It has become final as borne by Annexure R1 (b); whereby the said verdict was complied with by the State/Department ordering regularisation of the applicant in the said OA. Though it is stated in the said order that it would not be stated as a precedent, the verdict passed by the Tribunal in OA.No.1210/2013 does not contain any such rider and it has become final, having not been subjected to challenge.

¶42

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the Original Petition. That apart, it is seen that Ext.P3 order was passed by the Tribunal about one and a half years ago on 31.03.2016. The reason for the delay as stated in the Original Petition and also in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support thereof, is that the petitioner had to collect some

¶43

O.P.(KAT)NO.297 OF 2017 4

¶44

materials relating to the facts and figures. The said explanation does not inspire confidence of this Court insofar as all the relevant particulars in respect of the service were available with the Department and it was accordingly, that they had filed Ext.P2 reply statement before the Tribunal. After filing the said reply statement, what further factual particulars were required to be collected for filing the present O.P is not revealed. The proceedings now filed are belated in all respects and no interference is called for by this Court.

¶45

In the above circumstances, the O.P fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶46

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶47

Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE

¶48

IAP

The Secretary to Government v. Sri.N.M.Thankachan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary to Government v. Sri.N.M.Thankachan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Sini T.R.

Mohammed Makher.M Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Other

K.R.Rajesh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Posts

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs P.K Madhavan

The Ministry of Communications, Vs Shyamala M.L

P.R.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala