Partly allowed

K.T.Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2017WP(C)/9177/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding job absorption as NMR Operator, the High Court directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's claim with retrospective effect from 1977 and directed the order refusing consideration to be set aside.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 order set aside; First Respondent to consider petitioner's absorption claim and pass orders within one month.

K.T.Joseph Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/15TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 9177 of 2009 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

K.T.JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶8

S/O. K.J.THOMAS, HEAD OPERATOR, P.H.MEDICAL COLLEGE SECTION, KERALA WATER, AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KALATHIL HOUSE, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (WSB) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IPS & GL), CHAIRMAN, GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, S.C, KWA ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, S.C

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 9177 of 2009 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA SHOWING THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER DULY COUNTERSIGNED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.11.2001 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KWA/JB/E3-4399/01 DATED 26.07.2003 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 21761/B3/2003/WRD DATED 08.10.2003 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN AT THE 256TH MEETING OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DATED 30.03.2004.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KWA/JB/E3-14399/01 DATED 27.04.2004 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KWA/JB/E3-14399/01 DATED 17.04.2008 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2008 IN W.P(C).NO. 16341/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O(RT) 167/09/WRD DATED 09.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶35

W.P.(C).No.9177 of 2009

¶36

Dated this, the 05^th day of April, 2017.

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

¶39

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner as NMR Operator with effect from 10.10.1977 forthwith

¶40

and

¶41

(ii) grant such other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”

¶42

It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted

¶43

representations before the respondents seeking absorption as NMR operator w.e.f. 10.10.1977 on the basis of the Government Orders in force. The said request of the petitioner was favourably considered by the Kerala Water Authority and Ext.P5 resolution recommending the Government to absorb the petitioner as NMR operator w.e.f. 10.10.1977 was forwarded by the Government. A

¶44

W.P.(C).No.9177 of 2009 : 2 :

¶45

detailed letter recommending such action was again forwarded stating that the financial commitment in this regard would only approximately Rs.1,50,000/-. Though the case of the petitioner was directed to be considered by Ext.P8 judgment, by Ext.P9 order, dated 09.02.2009, it has been stated that since a writ petition filed by a similarly situated employee one Ramakrishnan is pending before this Court with regard to recovery of amounts paid to him on ground of his absorption as NMR operator w.e.f. 01.10.1977, the petitioner's claim cannot be considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a copy of the judgment dated 28.07.2011 in W.P.(C). No.10943/2006 referred to in Ext.P9 order to state that such writ petition has hence been allowed. It is therefore contended that the reasons stated for refusal to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption as NMR operator w.e.f. 10.10.1977 is no longer in existence.

¶46

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader

¶47

W.P.(C).No.9177 of 2009 : 3 :

¶48

appearing for the first respondent, I am of the opinion that the first respondent is duty bound to consider the claim raised by the petitioner for absorption as NMR operator w.e.f. 10.10.1977 in terms of the Government Orders in force as well as in the light of Exts.P5 and P6 recommendations of the Water Authority.

¶49

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P9 order is set aside. First respondent is directed to take up and consider the claim raised by the petitioner for absorption as NMR operator w.e.f. 10.10.1977 in the light of Exts.P5 and P6 and to pass orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequential benefits, if any, found due to the petitioner shall be released within a period of two months thereafter.

¶50

Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE

¶51

Bb/10/04/2017

¶52

[True copy]

¶53

P.A to Judge

K.T.Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Joseph v. the State of Kerala

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

C.A. Alophonsa Vs State of Kerala

Kalliyoor Grama Panchayat Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Durolac Vs State of Kerala

P.S. Thomas Vs Sree Kumar

Swami Sivananda Yogi Vs K. Padmadas

The Manager, Chemanchery East U.P.School Vs the State of Kerala and Others