Disposed

Suresh.M.C v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC1 Feb 2018WP(C)/3415/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning wage deduction for marked absence during night duty was disposed of by directing the Chief Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation with an opportunity of hearing within six weeks, following representations submitted in November and December 2017.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation, afford hearing, and pass orders within six weeks.

Suresh.M.C Vs Kerala State Electricity Board… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 12TH MAGHA, 1939

¶4

WP(C).No. 3415 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SURESH.M.C, AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF CHANDRAN, LINEMAN GRADE I, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SECTION, ELOOR, KOCHI-683 501, RESIDING AT PALEKANDATHIL, KUTTIKKATTUKARA PO 683 501.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.P.S.GIREESH SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTERED OFFICE, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶10

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

¶11

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALUVA-683 101.

¶12

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SECTION, ELOOR, KOCHI-683 501.

¶13

BY SRI.M.K. THANKAPPAN,SC SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

PBS

¶16

WP(C).No. 3415 of 2018 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED NIL PUBLISHED BY 4TH RESPONDENT, AS TO NIGHT, PEAK, HOLIDAY DUTIES OF STAFF OF ELOOR ELECTRICAL SECTION FOR NOVEMBER 2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2017 IN WPC NO. 26681 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL

¶21

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

¶22

PBS

¶23

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.3415 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner, who is a Lineman Gr.I., has aggrieved by marking of absence on the days when he attended night duty, on the ground that he did not attend day duty on those days. According to the petitioner he attended night duty from 8PM to 8AM as per Ext.P1 duty schedule for the month of November. The petitioner submits that in the month of December also similar duty schedule was given and he attended night duty. But during the months of November as well as December the 4^th respondent marked absence for those days and deducted his wages consequent to it. The petitioner submits that the said action of 4^th respondent is contrary to the circular issued by respondents on 19.8.2016 as well as 3.9.2016 issued by the 1^st respondent in compliance with the judgment dated 19.5.2016 in WP(C) No.4557 of 2013 read with clauses 10 and 14 of standing orders for workmen adopted by the 1^st respondent.

¶28

Pointing out these petitioner has submitted Ext.P3

¶29

representation before the 2^nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.3415/18

¶31

:2:

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel submits that Ext.P3 representation would be considered within a period of one month.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶34

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶35

rkc

Suresh.M.C v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh.M.C v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

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

Saji Basheer Vs Dr.K.M.Abraham

The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala Vs Saji Basheer

Dileepkumar K Vs the Chief Engineer(Hrm)

Subramaniyan Vs Shri Raghuraman

Venugopalan .K. Vs the Managing Director Kerala Water Authority

Dr.T.Mettleda Vs the Kerala University Rep.by Its Registrar