Disposed

K. Satheeshkumar v. Chairman

Kerala HC11 Apr 2018WP(C)/6369/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, suspended and later cleared to join duty by the Director, reported for work after applying for leave but was denied re-entry. The court directed the Director to consider reinstatement upon receiving a fresh representation from the petitioner within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a representation within two weeks; 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on reinstatement within one month.

K. Satheeshkumar Vs Chairman — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6369 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

K. SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O. KARUPPAIHA, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNDUMALA TOP DIVISION, K.D.H. VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.BABY MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. CHAIRMAN

¶11

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

2. DIRECTOR, KERALA HYDEL TOURISM CENTRE, CABIN NO. 426, 4TH FLOOR, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 004.

¶13

3. MANAGER, MUNNAR CIRCUIT, KERALA HYDEL TOURISM CENTRE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

4. OFFICE MANAGER, HYDEL PARK, K.H.T.C., MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

5. SITE MANAGER, ELEPHANT ABODE BOATING CENTRE, K.H.T.C., ANAYIRANKAL, SHANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 BY SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC,

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sdr/13.04.18

¶19

WP(C).No. 6369 of 2018 (U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 01.08.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.05.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, MUNNAR. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.10.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 18.11.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTOR. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION DATED 19.11.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.01.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE K H T C.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/13.04.18

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.6369 of 2018-U

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner, who had been working as a Cashier at Elephant Abode Boating Centre, Anayirankal, Munnar under the Kerala State Hydel Tourism Centre, was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P5 order on 18.11.2017 permitting him to join duty. The petitioner submits that he joined duty on 19.11.2017 pursuant to Ext.P5 order and applied for leave and thereafter he was not allowed to join duty. According to him, he submitted an application for leave on the directions of the 2^nd respondent. It is pointed out that even after the expiry of the period of leave for one month he applied for, he is not allowed to join duty though he reported for duty on 20.12.2017. The petitioner has submitted a representation Ext.P7 before the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to the petitioner, the respondents should have allowed

¶32

W.P(C) No.6369 of 2018-U 2

¶33

him to join duty when he reported for duty since he had submitted an application for leave. The petitioner has therefore submitted Ext.P7 representation before the Chairman of the KSEBL

¶34

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is seen that the application for leave submitted by the petitioner has not been sanctioned. According to the petitioner it is not rejected also.

¶35

In the above circumstances, the petitioner shall approach the 2^nd respondent with a suitable representation and there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to place the matter before the competent authority for consideration of the case of the petitioner regarding his reinstatement and further denial of permission to rejoin duty. In case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the 2^nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same within a further period of one month.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

rtr/

K. Satheeshkumar v. Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Satheeshkumar v. Chairman

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

N.Sidarathul Munthaha Vs Sri Mohan Kumar

Nelson.a Vs Smt. Prasannakumari.S

Johny.K.J Vs Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Bhaswara Vs Shajahan

Agimon P.T Vs Appeal Committee (Grievance Redressal Committee)

Leelavathy.K Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.