Dismissed

Sukumaran K.K v. Ankamaly Municipality

Kerala HC5 Feb 2018WP(C)/996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition by a daily wage driver seeking inclusion in the seniority list of substitute contingent workers. The petitioner argues Government sanction is unnecessary, while the respondent contends it is required pending government approval. The High Court directed the Municipality to act on the representation.

What did the court decide?

The court ordered the 1st Respondent (Ankamally Municipality) to pass orders on the petitioner's representation (Ext.P7) within one month duly received this judgment.

Sukumaran K.K Vs Ankamaly Municipality — 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 16TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 996 of 2018 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

SUKUMARAN K.K, KAVUNGAL VEEDU, NAYATHODU, ANKAMALY, ERNAKULAM 683 501.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS SMT.APARNA RAJAN SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN SMT.LIZA MEGHAN CYRIAC

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

1. ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶11

MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANKAMALY P.B.NO. 30, PIN 683 572.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶13

ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY,

¶14

MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANKAMALY, P.B NO. 30, PIN 683 572.

¶15

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Hr........

¶18

WP(C).No. 996 of 2018 (Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22.04.1982.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM DATED 04.12.2010.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM DATED 07.12.2010.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVENT EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08.01.2014.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF MUNICIPAL SECRETARY DATED 23.01.2014.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM DATED 10.02.2014.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

NIL

¶24

// TRUE COPY// P.S TO JUDGE.

¶25

Hr.....

¶26

P.V.ASHA J.

¶27

W.P.(C).No.996 of 2018

¶28

------------------------------------- Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2018

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Petitioner claims that he has been working as a Driver in the first respondent Municipality since the year 2000 on daily wages. It is also his claim that his name was sent among the employees who have completed 10 years of service when Government called for a list of persons who have completed 10 years' service on daily wages as per Ext.P2 letter dated 04.12.2010. As per Ext.P4 resolution of the Municipal Council which met on 08.01.2014, it was decided to include the petitioner in the seniority list of substitute contingent workers and to request for approval of the same from Government. According to the petitioner, the appointment of substitute workers is to be made by the Council as per Ext.P1 order and therefore approval is not necessary from Government.

¶31

A statement is filed on behalf of the

¶32

W.P.(C).No.996 of 2018

¶33

¶34

respondents by the learned Standing Counsel stating that petitioner had submitted an application to include him in the contingent seniority list and the Municipal Council as per its decision dated 08.01.2014, decided to include him in the contingent seniority list, subject to approval of Government and the matter was communicated to the Local Self Government Department through Director of Urban Affairs and no sanction is received from the said office. According to the petitioner, sanction is not necessary from Government and the Municipality is to take a decision in accordance with Government Orders.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Kozhikode Corporation [2007 (1) KLT 882] wherein this Court found that under Section 224 of the Municipalities Act, 1994, it is for the Municipal Council to make appointment and Government does not have any right to interfere with the decision of the Municipal Council.

¶36

W.P.(C).No.996 of 2018

¶37

¶38

4. It is stated that the petitioner has been

¶39

working from 2000 onwards and he has completed more

¶40

than 17 years of service. Petitioner has submitted a

¶41

representation Ext.P7 before the respondent pointing out these facts.

¶42

In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to pass orders on

¶43

Ext.P7 representation, in accordance with law,

¶44

within a period of 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶45

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶46

Sukumaran K.K v. Ankamaly Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran K.K v. Ankamaly Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager, Aravukad Hss Vs Sri.K.P.Krishnadas

Shanoj N.M Vs Dr. Abdul Majeed

Somasekharan Nair N Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Bindu Alakkandy Vs Sri. Karunakaran

A.Mannuel Nadar Vs K.M.Abraham

C.V. Michael Vs Achuthan