Quashed

Rajesh P.K. v. Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra

Kerala HC6 Mar 2017WP(C)/21953/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order reversing seniority between the petitioner and a respondent because it was issued without hearing the petitioner. Directions were issued to the authority to decide the claim after adjudicating factual disputes following a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P3 to the extent relating to the petitioner and third respondent; directed respondent to decide the claim after hearing parties within two months.

Rajesh P.K. Vs Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/15TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 21953 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAJESH P.K.,

¶8

SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA, REGIONAL CENTRE, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM -686 560.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.S.ANEESH.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA, PTP NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 038.

¶12

2. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA, REGIONAL CENTRE, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.

¶13

3. AMBILY K.S., OVERSEER, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA, REGIONAL CENTRE, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE. R3 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 21953 of 2016 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2009 ALONG WITH THE LIST OF INCUMBENTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.03.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶24

EXT.R3A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO.KSNK/ADMN/REG/211/05 DATED 27/01/2006.

¶25

EXT.R3B COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE NO.ADMN/74/09/RNK-KTM DATED 27/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.R3C COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/10/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.R3D COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 04/01/2010.

¶28

EXT.R3E COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.R3F COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/06/2016 IN WP(C).NO.1283/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶34

WP(C) No.21953 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2017

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The essential contest in this case is regards seniority between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. It may not be necessary to detail all the facts except to notice that the 3^rd respondent, who was originally senior to the petitioner, was subsequently placed as his junior because she had availed of a loss of pay leave and thus forfeited benefits during such period.

¶38

According to the petitioner, even though in Ext.P1 he has

¶39

been placed senior to the 3^rd respondent, in Ext.P3 that position has been reversed placing the 3^rd respondent senior to him, which according to him is illegal. His specific case is that Ext.P3 order has been issued without hearing him and for extraneous considerations.

¶40

I have heard Sri.P. Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent assisted by Sri.Brijesh Mohan.

¶41

WP(C) No.21953 of 2016

¶42

¶43

I see that a counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 3^rd respondent, in which she has produced Ext.R3(a), which according to her is the seniority list. She says, based on such document, that even if her loss of pay leave periiod was not reckoned, she is still senior, as is evident from the rank of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent in the said seniority list.

¶44

The learned Senior Counsel says that Ext.P3 order has been issued based on the directions of this Court in an earlier round of litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner refutes it by placing reliance on Ext.P1, which according to him is the proper seniority list. The learned Senior Counsel firmly contends that this is not the seniority list, but only an order extending the benefit of pay revision to the various employees under the service of the 1^st respondent.

¶45

It is obvious from the above submissions that what is involved in this case are essentially disputed questions of facts. Obviously this Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not be justified in delving into or considering such issues, which are squarely within the domain of factual disputations. I am sure that this is best left to the appropriate

¶46

WP(C) No.21953 of 2016

¶47

¶48

authorities for consideration for proper resolution. I say this is also because, as has been contended by the petitioner, Ext.R3 has been issued without hearing him.

¶49

In such circumstances, without going into the validity or otherwise of Ext.P3 on its merits and solely because I see that the petitioner was not heard before it was issued, I quash Ext.P3 to the extent to which it relates to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and direct the 1^st respondent to consider the relative claim of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent based on the various factual factors involved, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶50

The writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶51

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶52

//True Copy//

¶53

P.A. to Judge

¶54

sp/07/03/17

Rajesh P.K. v. Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh P.K. v. Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs Ramesan

K.v.Muraleedharan Vs the Managing Committee

Kattila Peediyakkal Hassankutty Vs Union of India

R. Sreedharan Nair Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Jamsheer Vs District Collector

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala