Dismissed

M. Jayachandran v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2019OP(KAT)/1517/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an Original Petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal order that rejected a retired employee's claim for regularization. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that no provision exists in the Rules for regularizing provisional hands. The judgment held there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition (KAT) stands dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

M. Jayachandran Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.1517 OF 2013(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A.1359/2012 DATED 29.03.2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT:

¶10

M. JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, OVERSEER GRADE II (ELECTRICAL) (RETIRED) HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BEYPORE (RESIDING AT METHARI HOUSE, EDAKKULAM, KOYILANDY-673306, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT).

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶15

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673015.

¶16

R1-R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶17

THIS OP (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

OP(KAT).1517/2013

¶20

K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ. --------------------------------

¶21

O.P (KAT) No.1517 of 2013-Z

¶22

Dated, this the 01^st day of November, 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶25

The petitioner-applicant before the Tribunal

¶26

was a provisional hand, who had 23 years of service under the respondents and claimed regularization in service.

¶27

2. The applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and appointed as Overseer Grade-II (Electrical) on 13.05.1981 under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules {“KS&SSR” for brevity] for a period of 89 days or till regular hands join duty. Based on the orders of this Court, the applicant continued in service and later the writ petitions were disposed of by a Full Bench in Umayammal v . State of Kerala [ 1982 KLT 829 ]. This Court permitted the provisional hands to continue in service till the PSC hands reported for duty.

¶28

- 3 -

¶29

OP(KAT).1517/2013

¶30

3. The Government attempted an amendment with a validation clause to get over the judgment of this Court, which was challenged unsuccessfully before this Court. The matter when carried in appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narayani v . State of Kerala [ 1984 KLT 17(SC) ] ordered to grant age relaxation to the provisional hands for taking PSC examination and further directed their retention till PSC hands reported for duty. The applicant continued in service and was terminated on 05.04.1998 when a PSC hand reported for duty. Later, the PSC hand relieved himself from service after four months, apparently for joining some other post. The applicant moved the Government and was again appointed on 30.05.2000. The Government issued Exhibit P9 order dated 26.08.2002 based on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.105 of 2001 dated 21.12.2001 holding that provisional hands who had long spells of service be retained in service till superannuation, but without any regularization. A representation for regularization

¶31

was filed in the year 2002, which was rejected in 2004.

¶32

OP(KAT).1517/2013 - 4 -

¶33

The applicant continued as a provisional hand and retired on 14.07.2006.

¶34

4. After retirement, he moved the Government

¶35

for regularization and as per the direction issued by this Court in a writ petition, his claim was considered and rejected. Then a writ petition was filed before this Court, which was transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that a provisional hand under Rule 9(a) (i) of the KS&SSR is not entitled to regularization as sought for.

¶36

5. There is absolutely no provision for regularization of such provisional hands and Exhibit P9 order passed by the Government was only in mitigation of the hardship of persons continued on provisional basis, presumably for reason of the pending litigation and also the delay in selection of persons. The learned Counsel for the petitioner before us also contended that there are many cases in which such a prayer for regularization was allowed and pension sanctioned. We notice that early as in 2004, the Government had rejected the claim for regularization finding that

¶37

OP(KAT).1517/2013 - 5 -

¶38

merely because there were instances of regularization it cannot be treated as a precedent. Here, we additionally find that the petitioner-applicant had continued in service till the age of superannuation and had far later to that approached this Court with a writ petition, which was transferred to the Tribunal and rejected. We find no ground to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal.

¶39

The Original Petition (KAT) would stand dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶40

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

vku/-

- 6 -

OP(KAT).1517/2013

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN T.A.NO.1359/2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.5018/2007 DATED 29.10.2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT EXE. ENGINEER H.E.W BEYPORE DT.13.05.1981
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.8043/ADV.C1/88/P&ARD DATED 18.6.1988.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.9516/ADV.C1/92/P & ARD DATED 9.3.1993.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER DATED 30.5.2000.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS.) NO.123/84/PWP&PD DATED 6.11.1994 PF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.225/98/PD OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 1.8.1998.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2002
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.630/D2/2003/HE DEPARTMENT DATED 3.7.2004.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.39/2002/P & ARD DATED 26.8.2002 OF THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 2.3.2006.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).12148/2005 DT.28.6.2006.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.A2/1504/91 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.7.2006.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.467/2006/F&P DEPT.DATED 11.5.2005.

¶48

OP(KAT).1517/2013 - 7 -

¶49

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.)NO.242/2005/F&P DEPT. DATED 11.5.2005.

¶50

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.567/05/F& P DEPT. DATED 21.11.2005.

¶51

[TRUE COPY]

M. Jayachandran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Jayachandran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs T.K.Hamsa

Union of India & Others Vs Tomy Mathew

Chairman, Board of Trustees, Vs Mohandas.K.

Ramya Ravindran P., Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

State of Kerala Vs K.K. Soman

V.Gopalakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala