Dismissed

The State of Kerala, v. v.Amuda

Kerala HC7 Mar 2019OP(KAT)/69/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's refusal to interfere with its prior order. The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in directing regularisation of the appellant's services and found no error warranting interference. The original petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was disposed of; the Tribunal's order refusing interference was upheld.

The State of Kerala, Vs v.Amuda — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 A.M.BABU

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶7

OP(KAT)No. 69 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09-03-2018 IN OA 274/2017 OF

¶9

KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1TO 4 IN O.A.:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA – 695 001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA – 695 033.

¶13

3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, 3RD FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, KERALA – 691 013.

¶14

4 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THENMALA, KOLLAM, KERALA – 691 308.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN

¶16

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IN O.A.:

¶17

V.AMUDA,D/O.JANAKI, PART-TIME SWEEPER ON FIXED REMUNERATION, KRISHI BHAVAN, THENMALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA – 691 308, RESIDING AT PARUMTHADIYIL, NEDUMANKAVU P.O., KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA – 689 698.

¶18

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT) No.69/2019

JUDGMENT

Chitambaresh, J.

It is conceded that the respondent started working as a Part Time Sweeper ever since 01.12.1987. True it is that she did not attend to her duties from 24.04.2002 to 28.02.2006 due to personal problems. But then she was permitted to rejoin duty and has been working in that post ever since. The Tribunal has in the earlier round by Annexure A4 order held as follows:

¶24

“In that view of the matter, even though the applicant was not having continuous service as on the date of Ext.P3 G.O., we are of the view that the applicant is entitled for regularisation based on Ext.P6 G.O. The appointment of the applicant initially was in 1987, prior to Ext.P3.”

¶25

It has not been brought to our notice that Annexure A4 order was challenged. Ext.P3 order in O.A. No. 274/2017 consequently passed cannot be contrary to Annexure A4 order earlier said. The Tribunal has only directed the appellants to create a post of Part Time Sweeper

¶26

OP(KAT) No.69/2019

¶27

¶28

and to regularise the services of the respondent therein. We do not think that the Tribunal has in any way erred warranting interference in this jurisdiction.

¶29

The original petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

Sd/- A.M. BABU

JUDGE

ncd

OP(KAT) No.69/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.

¶39

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.501/2005/FIN.DATED 25.11.2005.

¶40

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.61/2010/FIN.DATED 09.02.2010. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.195/08/ADDATED 25.11.2008.

¶41

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN T.A.NO.6144/2012 DATED 31.03.2016. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1008/2016/AGRI DATED 05.12.2016.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2018 IN O.A.NO.274/2017.

¶44

RESPONDENTS'EXHIBITS : NIL

The State of Kerala, v. v.Amuda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala, v. v.Amuda

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

Abdul Gafoor.T Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nasar.S Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Rajkumar Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

K.S. Rajeevan @ K.R. Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Mustafa M.P. Vs State of Kerala

Jerin.N.J Vs Union of India