Allowed

Basil T.K. v. Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited

Kerala HC6 Dec 2018WP(C)/15812/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that period of illegal ouster treated as non-duty for monetary benefits must be reckoned as notional duty for promotion, seniority, and pay fixation to ensure continuity of service.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant promotion to petitioners as Manager and Chief Manager reckoning ouster period as notional service; revise seniority; grant pay fixation benefits within three months.

Basil T.K. Vs Kerala Transport Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 15812 of 2014

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 BASIL T.K. ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, EMPIRE BUILDING, NEAR HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18.

¶8

2 SHERITH A. ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, KSRTC TERMINAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.T.C.KRISHNA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL K.R.,SC, KTDFC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN SHRI.T.P SAJAN SC SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).670/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶19

THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶20

WP(C).No. 670 of 2018

¶21

PETITIONER/S:

¶22

1 SHERITH A MANAGER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHIKODE-673001, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.38/99, WEST HILL P.O., CHUNGAM, KOCHIKODE-673005.

¶23

2 BASIL T.K. MANAGER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, ERNAKULAM-682018, RESIDING AT CHELAD, KALLAD, KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.T.C.KRISHNA

¶25

RESPONDENT/S:

¶26

1 KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶27

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶28

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶29

¶30

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶31

4 ANEESH BABU R. MANAGER (LEGAL, RECOVERY AND ADMINISTRATION), KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED,TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SC, KTDFC SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.V.VARGHESE

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

SRI.RON BASTIAN, GOVT. PLEADER

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).15812/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶37

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Both these writ petitions are filed by the very

¶40

same petitioners and their grievance relates to denial of promotion from the post of Assistant Manager reckoning the period of their ouster, assignment of seniority, etc. Accordingly these writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. The documents referred to in this judgment upto Ext.P9 are as described in W.P.(C) No. 15812/2014 and from Ext.P10 onwards are as described in W.P.(C) No.670 of 2018. The parties referred to in the judgment are as described in W.P.(C) No.670 of 2018.

¶41

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Managers in Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited (KTDFC) initially on contract basis as per order dated 07.12.2000. After the service rules and staff pattern were approved, they were regularised as per Ext.P2 order issued on 23.02.2006. While continuing so, Government issued orders cancelling their regularisation as per order dated 12.02.2007. Those

¶42

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶43

¶44

orders were set aside by this Court with liberty to respondents to proceed afresh. Thereafter Government issued Ext.P3 order on 12.09.2007, terminating their services. Petitioners approached this Court and finally in Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C).No.14694 of 2008, this Court found that the appointment of the petitioners were made on the basis of a regular process of selection and set aside the orders cancelling their regularisation and directed to reinstate the petitioners in service immediately with retrospective effect from 12.09.2007.

¶45

It was ordered that the petitioners would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period till their reinstatement; but would be entitled to continuity of service. The respondents filed W.A.No.2843 of 2009 which was dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.03.2012. Thereafter petitioners were reinstated, as per Ext.P6 order on 27.04.2012, with retrospective effect from 12.09.2007 without any monetary benefits till the date of the reinstatement, but with continuity in service.

¶46

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶47

¶48

Thereafter petitioners submitted Ext.P7

¶49

representation requesting for promotion as Deputy Manager with effect from October 2007 and as Manager from October 2010, pointing out that they have completed 11 years and 10 months of service as Assistant Manager. The Government had as per Ext.P8 letter dated 03.11.2012 directed that in order to provide continuity in service, the period spent out of service may be regularised as non duty without forfeiture of past service and that the rules as stated in KTDFC Service Rules can be insisted in respect of probation. In reply to the representation submitted by the petitioners, Government informed the petitioners as per Ext.P9 letter dated 21.06.2013 that the direction of the Government was to regularise the period spent out of service as non duty without forfeiture of their past service and that direction would not in any way adversely affect their prospects of seniority and promotion.

¶50

The 4^th respondent in W.P.(C).No.670 of 2018 was

¶51

appointed as Assistant Manager in the meanwhile, on

¶52

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶53

¶54

contract basis, on 13.10.2008. As the petitioners were not granted increments reckoning the period during which they were kept out of service, they approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.15812 of 2014, challenging Exts.P8 and P9 orders to the extent the period they were kept out side was treated as non duty and for direction to the respondents to promote them as Deputy Manger, Manager and Chief Manager, reckoning the period from 12.09.2007 to 02.05.2012 as duty for the purpose of promotion and increments. 5. During the

¶55

pendency of the writ petition and after the 1^st respondent had filed his first counter affidavit the petitioners were granted promotion as Deputy Managers with effect from 24.07.2014 as per Ext.P10 order dated 24.07.2014 (produced in W.P.(C).No.670 of 2018.)

¶56

Whileso, the 1^st respondent constituted a Committee to study and report in the matter of seniority and promotion of Assistant Managers and above. In the case of the 4^th respondent Committee found that he was

¶57

to be treated as the senior most employee in the

¶58

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶59

¶60

managerial service, for promotion as Chief Manager. The Committee found that he completed 1 year service in the category of Assistant Manager on 24.10.2009, 1 year as Deputy Manager on 11.12.2010 and 1 year as Manager on 26.12.2011. At the same time petitioners were found eligible for promotion as Manager only on 13.10.2012. The Committee submitted a report before the first respondent along with a provisional seniority list of Assistant Managers, in which the petitioners 1 and 2 were ranked as 1 and 2 with date of appointment on 23.02.2006 and the 4^th respondent as rank No.3 with date of appointment on 13.10.2008. The report also contained a table containing the details of the Managers eligible for promotion against the 2 posts of Chief Managers. The 4^th respondent was stated to be eligible for promotion as Chief Manager with effect from 26.12.2011 whereas the first petitioner was stated to be eligible with effect from 14.10.2013. After publication of provisional seniority list the 1^st respondent, on 07.02.2017, published Ext.P12 final seniority list of

¶61

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶62

¶63

Assistant Managers as on 01.08.2016 in which petitioners were ranked 1 and 2 and the 4^th respondent was rank No.3. Thereafter the Staff promotion Committee met on 24.03.2017, for the purpose of promotion as Managers. The Committee found that the 4^th respondent was rank No.1 among Deputy Managers with seniority from 23.10.2009. The 4^th respondent was shown as Sl No.1 with petitioners below him as Nos. 2 and 3, the Committee decided to grant promotion in accordance with the order in which the names of Deputy Managers were arranged. It was stated that the question including fixation of seniority and promotion in respect of petitioners would be referred to Government as a Special case considering the unique issue of retrenchment, reinstatement, temporary placement etc., and that the date of effect of promotion of the 4 incumbents, to the category of Managers need be decided only after getting the advice of Government in the matter. Exts.P14 and P15 orders were issued thereafter on 28.03.2017 granting promotion to the petitioners as Managers on the basis of the decision of

¶64

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶65

¶66

the Staff Promotion Committee held on 24.03.2017.

¶67

Thereafter provisional seniority list of Managers as on 11.07.2017 was issued as per Circular dated 15.07.2017. Petitioners thereupon submitted Exts.P18 and P19 objections over it. Ext.P20 seniority list was issued thereafter assigning seniority to the 4^th respondent at rank No.1 and to petitioners at rank Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. W.P.(C).No.670 of 2018 was filed

¶68

thereafter challenging Ext.P20 seniority list .

¶69

Respondents have filed detailed counter

¶70

affidavits in both the cases producing various documents including reports of the expert Committee constituted by Government on the question of the promotion/seniority of petitioners. Main contention raised by the respondents is that since the period during which the petitioners were kept out of service on account of their termination of service was treated as non duty their service cannot be reckoned for the purpose of 1 year service in each categories i.e., the Deputy Manager and the Manager and

¶71

they have been granted promotion as soon as they

¶72

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶73

¶74

completed 1 year actual service in each of the post.

¶75

According to the respondents they have complied with the judgment giving the petitioners continuity in service. But petitioners would not be entitled to draw increments or to get the benefit of the period when they remained out of service and it cannot be reckoned for the purpose of reckoning the one year period required for promotion to the posts above Deputy Manager, because they were not in actual service.

¶76

In the case of the 4^th respondent, it is stated

¶77

that he was the only person who was appointed on the basis of a regular process of selection after conducting written test, interview, group discussion etc., and he was in actual and physical service all along from 2008 onwards. However it is admitted that he was regularised in the post of Assistant Manager only in 2014.

¶78

Therefore, according to the respondents the petitioners who were out of service cannot be granted promotion when they were not on duty as they have not performed duty and were not in actual service all those

¶79

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶80

¶81

years. It is stated that 1 year actual service is necessary for promotion from a post, as per the KTDFC Service Rules. At the same time, the period during which petitioners were out of service cannot be reckoned as duty and only if petitioners had performed actual duty in each of the posts, they will be eligible for promotion. Since this Court has in Ext.P4 judgment directed that petitioners will not be entitled to monetary benefits, it is stated that they are not entitled to increments and the period of ouster cannot be reckoned as service for any purpose.

¶82

I have considered the rival contentions on both

¶83

sides. It is pertinent to note that the Government had already informed the petitioners in Ext.P9 letter that the period spent out of service would not adversely affect the prospects of their seniority and promotion. But the respondents have denied them promotion to the posts above that of Deputy Manager on completion of 1 year each in the respective posts on the ground that petitioners were not in actual service. It is pertinent

¶84

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶85

¶86

to note that petitioners were disabled to perform duty

¶87

on account of their termination which was found illegal by this Court. In Ext.P4 judgment, what was denied was only the monetary benefits. At the same time continuity in service was ordered. Then there is no justification on the part of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioners reckoning the notional service rendered by them during the period when they were illegally kept out of service.

¶88

It is also relevant to note that the 4^th

¶89

respondent who was continuing as Assistant Manager got regularization in that post only as per Ext.P16 order dated 12.12.2014 though w.e.f 13.10.2008. He was granted promotion, reckoning the service rendered by him as Assistant Manager, whereas what is required is one year service in each of the post. If that be so there is no basis for denying such benefit to petitioners.

¶90

Though the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the 4^th respondent was in actual service whereas the

¶91

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶92

¶93

petitioners were not performing any duty and they were not in actual service.

¶94

When the respondents are not insisting for the prescribed period of service in each posts even in the case of the 4^th respondent, they cannot be heard to content that the petitioners should have completed 1 year service in each of the posts for the purpose of the further promotions. Even otherwise such denial of benefit would amount to contempt of this Court, as it is the direction of this Court to give continuity of service to petitioners. What was denied while directing reinstatement was only monetary benefits. Petitioners would therefore be entitled to get their service reckoned for the purpose of fixation of pay, higher grades, etc. (if any), and also for seniority and promotion, which Government themselves had informed them in Ext.P9 letter.

¶95

In the above circumstances, I find that the denial of promotion to the petitioners to all the posts above Deputy Managers in preference to 4^th respondent, on

¶96

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶97

¶98

completion of requisite number of years of service, is illegal and the rank assigned to the petitioners below the 4^th respondent in Ext.P20 seniority is illegal.

¶99

Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners reckoning the period during which they were kept out of service treating the same as notional service, to the post of Manager and also Chief Manager. On the basis of such promotion, Ext.P20 shall be revised assigning the petitioners seniority above the 4^th respondent. Petitioners will also be entitled to fixation of pay reckoning the period during which they were kept out of service and they shall be granted all benefits on the basis of such fixation of pay. This shall be done within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶100

These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶101

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶102

¶103

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶104

¶105

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15812/2014

¶106

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶107

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 7-12-2000 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-02-06 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-9-07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9-10-2009 IN WPC NO. 14694/2008.
EXHIBIT P5	JUDGMENT DATED 14-3-2012 IN WA NO. 2843/2009.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 27-4-2012.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12-10- 2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3-11-2012 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21-6-2013 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16-10-2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9-1-2004.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9-1-2004.

¶108

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶109

¶110

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶111

EXHIBIT-R1(a) THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ESST. 3859/2014/KTDFC DATED 24/7/2014.

¶112

EXHIBIT-R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 244/A1/2016/TRAN DATED 18/3/2016 RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT-R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24/6/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT-R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE OPINION GIVEN BY AD.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR. EXHIBIT-R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF ASSISTANT MANAGERS AND DEPUTY MANAGERS AS ON 1/8/2016 DATED 18/1/2017. EXHIBIT-R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY SALINI DEVI K.I. EXHIBIT-R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY N.C.PRASAD. EXHIBIT-R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF ASSISTANT MANAGERS AND DEPUTY MANAGERS AS ON 1/8/2016 DATED 7/2/2017

¶113

EXHIBIT-R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STAFF PROMOTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 24/3/2017 EXHIBIT-R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDERS OF BASIL T.K. DATED 28/3/2017. EXHIBIT-R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDERS OF SHERITH A. DATED 28/3/2017. EXHIBIT-R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO TRANS DATED 05.07.2017 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT-R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. KTDFC/ESST./A1/01/2017 DATED 15/7/2017

¶114

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶115

¶116

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 670/2018

¶117

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶118

EXHIBIT P1-	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY OF THE 1ST	OF ORDER DATED 23/02/2006 THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2-	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY OF THE 2ND	OF ORDER DATED 23/02/2006 THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3-	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY OF THE 1ST	OF ORDER DATED 12/09/2007 THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4-	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY OF THE 2ND	OF ORDER DATED 12/09/2007 THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5-	TRUE COPY WP(C)NO.14 COURT.	OF JUDGMENT IN 694/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE
EXHIBIT P6-	TRUE COPY OF THIS HO 14/03/2012	OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2843/2009 NOURABLE COURT DATED .
EXHIBIT P7-	TRUE COPY 27/04/2012	OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED .
EXHIBIT P8-	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF LETTER DATED 03/11/2012 THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P9-	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF LETTER DATED 21/06/2013 THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P10-	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF ORDER DATED 24/07/2014 THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11-	TRUE COPY CONSTITUTE	OF REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE D BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12-	TRUE COPY	OF ORDER DATED 07/02/2017

¶119

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶120

¶121

ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶122

EXHIBIT P13-	TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE STAFF PROMOTION COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 24/03/2017.
EXHIBIT P14-	TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/03/2017 FOR APPOINTING THE 1ST PETITIONER AS MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P15-	TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/03/2017 FOR APPOINTING THE 2ND PETITIONER AS MANAGER.
EXHIBIT P16-	TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 12/12/2014.
EXHIBIT P17-	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P18-	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DATED 20/07/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P19-	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 19/07/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P20-	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/12/2017 AND THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF MANAGERS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EX	HIBITS:
EXHIBIT-R2(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 244/a1/2016/TRAN. DATED 18/3/2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT-R2(b)	TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF MANAGERS PUBLISHED VIDE CIRCULAR NO. KTDFC/ESTT/A1/01/2017.
EXHIBIT-R2(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STAFF PROMOTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 29/11/2017.
EXHIBIT-R2(d)	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ESST/A1/2494/2012/KTDFC DATED 19/12/2017.
EXHIBIT-R2(e)	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ESST/A1/2495/2012/KTDFC DATED 19/12/2017.
EXHIBIT-R2(f)	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.KTDFC/ ESST/A1/01/2017(1) DATED 28/3/2017

¶123

WP(C).NoS.15812 of 2014 & 670 of 2018

¶124

¶125

EXHIBIT-R2(g)

¶126

TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ESST/A1/9635/08/KTDFC(1) DATED 28/3/2017.

¶127

EXHIBIT-R2(h) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. KTDFC/ESST/A1/01/2017(2) DATED 28/3/2017.

¶128

EXHIBIT-R2(i) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ESST/A1/9635/08/KTDFC DATED 19/12/2017.

Basil T.K. v. Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basil T.K. v. Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited

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

G. Mani Vs Neethulal v.

P.C.Sahajan Vs State of Kerala

K. Chandrasekharan Vs Kerala Water Authority

C. Rajasekharan Vs State of Kerala

Shyju K.A. Vs Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Limited (Kel)

P.J.Francis Vs Sri.Tomin J.Thachankary,Ips