The High Court of Kerala disposed of OP(KAT) No. 100 of 2019, dismissing the challenge to an Administrative Tribunal order denying service benefits to a part-time sweeper, holding no sufficient ground for interference and refusing to set a precedent.
The original petition is dismissed without any relief being granted to the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940
OP(KAT)No. 100 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-03-2016 IN TA 6144/2012 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN T.A.:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA.
BY SENIOR GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN T.A.:
V.AMUDA,W/O. ASOKAN, PART-TIME SWEEPER ON FIXED REMUNERATION, KRISHI BHAVAN, THENMALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA , PIN - 691 308.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT)100/2019
JUDGMENT
Chitambaresh, J.
The challenge to Annexure A6 order in an original petition has proved to be unsuccessful. The challenge to Annexure A4 order passed as early as on 31.03.2016 is belated. We do not see any sufficient ground to interfere in this original petition as well. However we make it clear that this judgment shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.
The original petition is dismissed.
Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE
Sd/- A.M. BABU JUDGE
ncd
OP(KAT)100/2019
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE A2 | TRUE COPY OF THE FILED BY THE 1ST |
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A3 | TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION |
REPLY AFFIDAVIT WITH |
| ANNEXURE A1 | TRUE COPY OF THE NO.36571/2008 WIT |
W.P.(C) H ITS EXHIBITS |
| ANNEXURE A4 | TRUE COPY OF THE 31.03.2016 IN TA |
ORDER DATED 6144/12 |
| ANNEXURE A5 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 05.12.2016 |
GOVERNMENT ORDER |
| ANNEXURE A6 | TRUE COPY OF THE 09.03.2018 IN OA |
ORDER DATED 274/17 |
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE 24.04.2002 |
MEDICAL CERTIFICATE |
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 28.02.2006 |
FITNESS CERTIFICATE |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE NO.501/2005/FIN. |
G.O. (P) dated 25.11.2005 |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR C PART-TIME SWEEPER |
ANNEXURE TO REATION OF POST OF ON 23.11.2007 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 25.11.2008 |
G.O.(MS) 195/08/AD |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 09.02.2010 |
G.O. (P) 61/2010/FIN PETITION |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Administrative Tribunal dismissing the service benefit petition.
Whether the delay in filing the challenge to the earlier order of 31.03.2016 provides sufficient ground for interference.
The State of Kerala, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture
V. Amuda
V. Chitambaresh
A.M. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
