Dismissed

Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Kerala - Vfpck v. Ratheesh Chandran

Kerala HC4 Nov 2020WA/1433/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council to grant enhanced pay scale benefits to a driver who was appointed in an unsanctioned post but denied benefits granted to subsequent appointees in sanctioned posts. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3373/2020 is upheld and the appellant must grant pay benefits to the respondent.

Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Kerala - Vfpck… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1433 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3373/2020(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶10

1 VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION KERALAM - (VFPCK) MYTHRI BHAVAN, NEAR DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶12

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALAM (VFPCK), MYTHRI BHAVAN, NEAR DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037,

¶13

BY ADV. SHRI. MAJNU KOMATH, SC, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALAM VFPCK

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶15

1 RATHEESH CHANDRAN,

¶16

DRIVER, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALA(VFPCK), ETTUMANOOR TRAINING VENU, ETTUMANOOR , KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 562.

¶17

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA No.1433/2020

-:2:-

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2020

¶23

Shaffique, J.

¶24

The Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and its Chief Executive Officer have preferred this appeal challenging judgment dated 18/3/2020 in WP(C) No. 3373/2020. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein seeking for a declaration that he was entitled to pay and allowances in the scale of pay of `17000-37500 w.e.f. 6/7/2015 in implementation of Ext.P7 Government Order and for other reliefs.

¶25

The short facts of the case would disclose that the 1^st respondent/petitioner was appointed as a driver on 6/7/2015 in the 1^st appellant's establishment. After a due process of selection comprising of written test, skill test and interview, he was regularized in service as per letter dated 26/9/2016. His probation was declared on 6/7/2017. Ext.P6 is the seniority list in which 1^st respondent was shown at Sl.No.18 among the drivers. Sl.Nos.19 to 21 are persons who joined subsequently.

¶26

By Ext.P7 Government Order dated 31/5/2019,

¶27

WA No.1433/2020

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

sanction was given for revision of pay scale of the employees of the first appellant and as far as driver is concerned, the revised pay scale was from 8730-13540 to 17000-37500. The revised scale of pay was brought into force effective from 1/7/2014. Though the revised scale of pay was granted to all other drivers, 1^st respondent was not granted the same. He therefore submitted a representation Ext.P11 and yet another representation Ext.P12. Since no action was taken, he filed the writ petition inter alia contending that his juniors who joined subsequent to his date of appointment were granted the enhanced scale of pay as per Ext.P7.

¶30

The appellants took up a contention before the learned Single Judge inter alia stating that the sanctioned strength of drivers in the organization is only 20. 1^st respondent was appointed in anticipation of the approval by the Government to enhance the sanctioned strength from 20 to 21. After appointment of the 1^st respondent, 3 employees in the driver category retired and those were filled up by yet another selection process and those persons were appointed in March 2018 and April 2018. It is pointed out that as soon as the appellants receive

¶31

WA No.1433/2020

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

the approval from the Government, the pay and allowance of the 1^st respondent will be revised.

¶34

Learned Single Judge after considering the respective contentions observed that petitioner/1^st respondent was senior to the other persons who were appointed subsequently and when they were paid the pay scale in terms with Ext.P7, petitioner/1^st respondent should also be given the same benefit in preference to his juniors. Accordingly, direction had been issued to the appellants to ensure that the 1^st respondent/petitioner is granted all the benefits, which his juniors are enjoying, with effect from the date on which he was regularized.

¶35

While impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 1^st respondent was not paid the scale of pay in terms with Ext.P7 because he was not appointed in a sanctioned post. But, it is relevant to note and as already pointed out by the learned Single Judge, after the appointment of the 1^st respondent, three vacancies had arisen. The 1^st respondent should have been accommodated in one of the said sanctioned posts. Instead of doing it, the organization called for applications and appointed three other persons. At any

¶36

WA No.1433/2020

¶37

-:5:-

¶38

rate, the 1^st respondent should have been accommodated in a sanctioned post even though the sanctioned strength was 20. Under such circumstances, when in a subsequent selection process, certain persons were appointed and they were given the benefit of a higher scale of pay, it was totally illegal on the part of the first appellant to have denied the same benefit to the 1^st respondent/petitioner. Learned Single Judge was therefore justified in issuing the direction as sought for by the writ petitioner.

¶39

Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said judgment. Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

True Copy

JUDGE

PS to Judge

Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Kerala - Vfpck v. Ratheesh Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Kerala - Vfpck v. Ratheesh Chandran

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

Sidique Mannan Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Jisha I.

Kerala Public Service Commission, Vs Rani M.H.

Union of India Vs C.B.Lalithakumari

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Sushama N.

T.R. Molly Vs Union of India