On suo motu proceedings regarding a request for permanent employee status and retrospective benefits, the Court dismissed the petitioner's claim, noting a prior order had already denied permanence due to an error in issuing the identity card, and the petitioner is no longer in service.
The DBP is closed and the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit.
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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1941
DBP.No.9 OF 2020
(IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD-CDB REPORT NO.68/2019 IN COMPLAINT NO.162/19-REQUEST OF SRI.M.S.PRASANNAN, MELSANTHI, PALLIMANA SIVA TEMPLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT- SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
M.S.PRASANNAN, AGED 52 YEARS MELSANTHI, PARAKKOOTHU MADOM MUNDATHICODE P.O. THRISSUR.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THRISSUR.
R1 BY SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DBP.No.9 of 2020
2
ORDER
Ravikumar, J.
This DBP was registered based on CDB Report No.68/2019 in Complaint No.162/2019. In the complaint the name of the complainant is shown as M.S.Prasannan. He claims permanence contending that he had been working as Melsanthi in Pallimana Siva Temple for more than six years. It is in the said circumstances that he filed Complaint No.162/2019 stating that he is being paid wages only on daily wage basis and he is entitled to get permanence. The report has been filed taking note of the contentions raised in the complaint. Obviously, his contention therein is that he was assigned a Permanent Employee Number which would indicate that he is a permanent employee under the Devaswom Board. We may hasten to add that if he is a permanent employee there was absolutely no justification in claiming regularisation or permanence. In this context, it is to be noted that he had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.25630 of 2018 wherein his name was shown as Prasannan Namboodiri. It appears that in the said writ petition also he has
DBP.No.9 of 2020
3
taken up similar contentions. Obviously, his contention was that he was assigned permanent identity card with PEN number and therefore, he is entitled to all benefits available to the permanent employees.
DBP.No.9 of 2020
4
complainant is not in the services of the Devaswom Board. Upon recruitment of regular employees his services were terminated. Taking into account all the aforesaid aspects we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit based on Complaint No.162/2019. With the said observation this DBP is closed.
Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge
Sd/- N.NAGARESH
Judge
TKS
DBP.No.9 of 2020
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: NIL
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 7.11.2018 IN WP(C)NO.25630/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
TKS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to permanent employee benefits after a prior order denied permanence due to issuance by mistake.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C)No.25630 of 2018Relied on¶19
M.S.Prasannan
The Secretary Cochin Devaswom Board
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
N.NAGARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
