Disposed

Sundharam.M v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Kerala HC29 Nov 2018WP(C)/25902/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a 60-year-old sweeper employed since 1 facing dismissal, filed a writ petition seeking regularisation. The court, deeming it unnecessary to decide ultimate merits, directed the respondent Board to sympathetically consider the petitioner's request for regularisation if feasible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed by directing the respondent Board to consider the petitioner's request for regularization sympathetically if feasible.

Sundharam.M Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 25902 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUNDHARAM.M, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. MUTHIYYA, KINATTUVILA HOUSE,VADATTUPARA P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.

¶11

2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER GENERATION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GENERATION DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,EDAMALAYAR,KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 681.

¶13

4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GENERATION SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, EDAMALAYAR,KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 681.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

-2-

¶16

W.P.(C). No. 25902 of 2017

¶17

SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN SC KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMIT

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner, now 61 years old, claims that he joined the service of the respondent Electricity Board in 1975 as a Sweeper (maintenance) and has been serving thus to this day. He complaints that now the Board decides to dispense with his services and engage some other person.

¶21

The petitioner's counsel has fervently pleaded that the petitioner has been working for about 44 years. According to him, as the petitioner is a contingent employee, he is not entitled to any statutory benefits, such as gratuity and pension. Therefore, a contingent employee's age of superannuation is fixed at 70 years. Now, with a few more years to go if the petitioner is thrown out, his entire family will be on the street.

¶22

W.P.(C). No. 25902 of 2017

¶23

-3-

¶24

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submits that there is no relationship of employeremployee between the Board and the petitioner. According to him, even if the petitioner had been working for the past many years, it would have been under successive contractors, but not directly under the Board. He also draws my attention to G.O.(P) No.61/2010/Fin., dated 09.02.2010, to contend that the Government directed the Board to engage part-time sweepers only from 'Kudumbasree'. Therefore, he further contends that the petitioner's request will conflict with the Government Order.

¶25

To rebut the Board's contention that the petitioner has no privity with the Board, the petitioner's counsel draws my attention to the Ext.P8, what seems to be an extract of attendance register. At any rate, he pleads that this Court my direct the respondent Board to consider the petitioner's issue sympathetically. The Government order was issued in 2010, but the petitioner has been working for many decades, even before that, so pleads the petitioner's counsel.

¶26

-4-

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 25902 of 2017

¶28

Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the respondent Board may consider the petitioner's request for regularisation, if feasible, sympathetically.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

JUDGE

das

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SWITCH YARD EQUIPMENT SUB DIVISION, ERECTION CIRCLE, MOOLAMATOM DATED 31.01.1976.

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.1998.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.1999.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶39

-5-

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 25902 of 2017

¶41

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATE 31.01.2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 02.05.2011. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ATTENDANCE OF THE PETITIONER FROM 01.07.2000 TO 30.09.2004.

¶43

EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.09.2007 TOWARDS THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER.

¶44

EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.2017 TOWARDS SALARY OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2016.

Sundharam.M v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundharam.M v. Kerala State Electricity Board 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

Khalid Nellikote Vs State of Kerala

Mahamood K. Vs State of Kerala

Airport Employees Federation of India Vs Union of India

Classic Granites Vs Deputy Commissioner Customs (Refunds)

Reckon Marketing Vs Deputy Commissioner Customs (Refunds)

Angel Valsala, Vs the Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax