Disposed

K.Balasubramoniyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2018WP(C)/5805/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for admission of a writ petition challenging termination of services, the Court dispensed with full merits. It directed the Chairman to consider the appeal, ensuring natural justice by an opportunity of hearing and rival post-termination submissions, before passing fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Chairman to consider Ext.P8 appeal; ensuring natural justice by allowing supplementary representation; fresh orders to be passed within two months.

K.Balasubramoniyan Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5805 of 2018

¶6

----------------------

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

K.BALASUBRAMONIYAN, PUMP OPERATOR CUM PLUMBER (UNDER TERMINATION), DIVISION NO.II, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT RATIMOOLAYIL KATTAKAL VEEDU, KARAVILA ROAD, CHITHRA NAGAR, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.R.MAHESH MENON SRI.KDEAGO JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD DIVISION NO.II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, SC SRI.K.DENNY DEVASSY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.V.

¶17

WP(C).No. 5805 of 2018 (A)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBIT --------	S -
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 25.04	COPY OF .1987.	THE CONTRACT APPOINTMENT DATED
EXHIBIT P1(A)	TRUE RESPO TO 03	COPY OF NDENT EN .05.2018	THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2017 OF 4TH GAGING PETITIONER FROM 04.05.2017 .
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE W.P.C	COPY OF . 5191/2	THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2009 IN 009.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE ALLOW	COPY OF ING PETI	G.O.8/2011/HSG DATED 26.02.2011 TIONER TO CONTINUE IN SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE 3RD R	COPY OF ESPONDEN	THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2017 OF THE T.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE SHOW	COPY OF CAUSE NO	THE REPLY DATED 08.02.2016 TO THE TICE.
EXHIBIT P5(A)	TRUE RECEI	COPY OF VED UNDE	THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.02.2018 R RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE	COPY OF	THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P6(A)	TRUE	COPY OF	THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.01.2016.
EXHIBIT P6(B)	TRUE	COPY OF	THE LETTER DATED 09.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRU SUBMI	E COPY O TTED BY	F THE REPLY DATED 04.07.2017 PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE	COPY OF	APPEAL DATED 20.11.2017.`
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE OPERA	COPY OF TOR.	THE CREATION OF THE POST OF PUMP

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 6.03.2018

¶23

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶24

W.P(C) No.5805 of 2018-A

¶25

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner claims that he had been working under the 2^nd respondent-the Kerala State Housing Board, as Pump Operator cum Plumber for 31 years and his services were terminated abruptly without conducting any enquiry or observing the principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioners is that though he had filed an appeal Ext.P8 before the Chairman, the Board has a taken a decision not to consider the same. Even though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 appeal before the Secretary of the Board, it was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends that Ext.P8 appeal submitted before the Chairman also would be rejected.

¶28

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board

¶29

also.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that

¶31

Chairman of the Board would consider the said appeal.

¶32

¶33

W.P(C) No.5805 of 2018-A

¶34

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P8 appeal and pass orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case there is any enquiry report based on which the services of the petitioner have been terminated, a copy of such report shall be furnished to the petitioner before the hearing is held and he shall be allowed to submit supplementary representation if necessary. Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶37

rtr/

K.Balasubramoniyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Balasubramoniyan v. 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

S. Preetha Vs Binu Karunakaran

The University of Calicut Vs Smt. Praseetha C. Mohan

T.J.Joseph Vs the Director General

Benny Muttathil @ Benny Mathew Vs General Manager, B.S.N.L Bhavan, Kannur 2

R.G.Radhakrishnan Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Krishna Kumar R. Vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd.