Allowed

Sudarsanan K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2019OP(KAT)/232/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an original application for regularization of services of two pump operators working in Kerala Raj Bhavan, contending they worked in unsanctioned posts for decades. The court set aside the Tribunal's order rejecting regularization due to lack of sanctioned posts, exercising discretion based on long continuous service.

What did the court decide?

Services of the petitioners regularized and emoluments disbursed without delay; Tribunal order set aside.

Sudarsanan K Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 232 of 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27-01-2015 IN O.A 2433/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:

¶10

1 SUDARSANAN K., S/O. KRISHNAN CHETTIYAR, VINAYAKAM, ENIKKARA, NILAMI, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶11

2 SAJI S., S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, NAIKKARAVIKATHU VEEDU, MELATHUMELE, VATTIYOORKAVU, MANIKANTESWARAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAMESH SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN SRI.NAVEEN.T

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BUILDINGS), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE, MUSEUM JUNCTION, VIKAS VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶16

OP(KAT)No.232 of 2015

¶17

¶18

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶19

BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS OP(KAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3.6.2019, THE COURT ON 4.6.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP(KAT)No.232 of 2015

Judgment

Chitambaresh, J.

1.The fact that the petitioners were working as Pump Operators at Kerala Raj Bhavan comprising of the Residence of the Governor, Office and Quarters from 23.7.1991 and 11.3.1993 respectively is beyond dispute. They were initially engaged as CLR Workers on daily wages by the Public Works Department and were converted as SLR Workers with effect from 1.2.2014 concededly. That there has been a practice of appointing Fitters as Pump Operators in Raj Bhavan is evident from Ext.R1(a) letter of the Assistant Executive Engineer to the Executive Engineer (B&R) Division.

¶26

2.The duty of the Pump Operator is to ensure uninterrupted water supply to the Residence of the Governor and other Offices and Quarters and the duties are arranged in 3 shifts of 8 hours each. This is evident from Ext.R1(b) letter of the Assistant Engineer to the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Maintenance Sub Division indicating that there is a need for the continuous duty of Pump Operator. The Government has by Ext.P12 order clarified that the posts which have been continuously in existence for more than 5

¶27

OP(KAT)No.232 of 2015

¶28

¶29

years will be treated as permanent without further confirmation.

¶30

3.The only ground on which the claim of the petitioners for regularisation in service has been turned down by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2433/2012 is that 'they are daily wage employees working in the unsanctioned posts'. The Supreme Court after referring to Umadevi's case [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has held in Nihal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others [(2013) 14 SCC 65] as follows:

¶31

“20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of a large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need.” (emphasis supplied)

¶32

4.That there is a need for the sanctioned posts of Pump Operator to ensure the uninterrupted water supply to the Kerala Raj Bhavan comprising of the Residence of the Governor, Office and Quarters has to be recognized. There is no gainsaying in the fact that the

¶33

OP(KAT)No.232 of 2015

¶34

¶35

posts are not sanctioned and that the petitioners who have been working there for long cannot be regularized. We do feel that the petitioners who have worked for decades uninterruptedly without any break are entitled to regularization of their services in the special facts and circumstances.

¶36

5.It is reported that the first petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation while few more years of service is left to the second petitioner and hence their services shall be regularised and the emoluments disbursed without delay. We set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allow O.A.No.2433/2012 filed by the petitioners making it clear that this judgment shall not be a precedent.

¶37

The original petition is allowed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶40

Sd/ASHOK MENON, JUDGE

¶41

Sha/030619

¶42

OP(KAT)No.232 of 2015

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXT.P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN O.A.NO.2433/2012 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A26(B)
EXT.P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 18.4.2012 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, STATE OF KERALA
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 25.2.2013 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED ON 25.4.2014 BY THE APPLICANT
EXT.P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS)NO.9/14/P.W.D. DATED 1.2.2014 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXT.P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.2433/2012 DATED 27.1.2015 OF THE LEARNED KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
EXT.P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.4.2015 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXT.P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.5.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXT.P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.5.2015 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXT.P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.6.2015 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXT.P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9.6.2015 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH

¶47

OP(KAT)No.232 of 2015

¶48

¶49

TRANSLATION

¶50

EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.DATED 20.5.1978 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E1-1847/7 DATED 22.1.1986. EXT.R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.9.2007

Sudarsanan K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarsanan K 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

Subrata Biswas Vs Prameela John

Union of India Vs K.K.Gopalakrishnan

Smt.P.K.Sudha, Vs Union of India

Bijimol Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Ajeesh Vijayan

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Elizabeth Thomas