Dismissed

Sreerekh K.S., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2020WA/1339/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging a single judge's order permitting an employee to submit a request for extension of deputation expired, a two-judge Division Bench dismissed the appeal, finding no ground to interfere and noting that employees lack a vested right to remain in deputation posts.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, allowing the single judge's order which permitted the appellant to submit a representation to continue in the post.

Sreerekh K.S., Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 23RD ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1339 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16057/2020(F) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶10

SREEREKH K.S., AGED 51 YEARS S/O.P.N.SIVAPRASAD, ASSISTANT SALESMAN, (ON DEPUTATION), THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., (FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (C) DEPARTMENT, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682017, RESIDING AT SREEVIHAR, KAVATHAT PARAMBIL, O.K.MADHAVI AMMA ROAD, KOCHI-682018.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN SMT.T.N.SREEKALA SRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL SRI.PAUL C THOMAS SHRI.BABU M. SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN SRI.HAARIS MOOSA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC(C):

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

¶14

2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695008.

¶15

3 THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695008.

¶16

W.A.No.1339/2020

¶17

¶18

4 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM-682317.

¶19

5 THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., KOCHI DEPOT, CHULLICKAL, KOCHI, PIN-682005.

¶20

6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CENTRE FOR ADVANCED PRINTING AND TRAINING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695013.

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR- SR. G.P.

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1339/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of October 2020

¶29

Shaffique, J.

¶30

This appeal has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.16057/2020. The appellant/petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking for a direction to the 1^st respondent to allow him to continue on deputation under the 2^nd respondent in the existing post. Even, according to the appellant, he was an employee of the 6^th respondent Kerala State Centre for Advanced Printing and Training, Thiruvananthapuram and he was sent on deputation to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, Kochi Depot at Ernakulam. The period of deputation has expired. He was already given one extension and that period is also over. He wants to continue in the present post and therefore, he had submitted a representation, which was not considered and accordingly, he had approached this Court.

¶31

As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, there is no legal vested right on the appellant to remain in the present post. When the period of deputation is over, he is to return back to his parent department. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant,the appellant was permitted to give an appropriate request/representation to continue at Ernakulam and direction was

¶32

W.A.No.1339/2020

¶33

¶34

issued to consider the same.

¶35

It is trite that the Court shall not normally interfere in service matters unless there is patent illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness in the matter. In the case on hand, though some allegations of malafides are stated by the appellant, none of the persons, who have exercised such malafide action against the appellant, had been impleaded and no steps have been taken in that regard. Therefore, such a question does not arise for consideration. Even otherwise, the appellant did not have such a grievance when the matter was adjudicated by the learned single Judge. There is no reason why such issues be considered by us.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the records, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge.

¶37

The writ appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

acd

JUDGE

Sreerekh K.S., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreerekh K.S., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Fabeena.K.K.

Dr. Aswathi Joseph Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Director Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Principal Secretary to Government, Vs Xavier K.K.

The Director, Vs A.S. Issac

Akhila Jacob Vs State of Kerala