The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging an order barring increment. The Court upheld the Single Judge's refusal to entertain the delay, noting statutorily no further challenge was available to the appellate order.
Writ appeal dismissed; no costs to any party.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941
W.A.No.156 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)No.6239/2017 DATED 25-10-2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:
RETNAKARAN PILLAI K., S/O. KUNJAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, (FL-1-239), I.D NO. 2214, ABKARI WORKER, VELIYATHU THEKKATHIL, MADAPALLY, MUKUNDAPURAM P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SIVARAJ SRI.I.P.VARGHESE.
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPN. LTD,(KSBC) P.B NO. 2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010.
3 THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPN.LTD,(KSBC), WAREHOUSE, KARICODE, KOLLAM 691 005
R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH. R2-R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.NAVEEN.T.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 -
W.A.156 of 2018
K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ. ---------------------------------------W.A.No.156 of 2018
Dated this the 09th day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran,J:
The appellant challenges the order imposing punishment of barring of increment with cumulative effect, issued as per Exhibit P8 on 17.07.2010. The appellant also had a contention that though Exhibit P9 appeal was submitted, it was not considered.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared and produced
the order in appeal, which was rejected as early as on 27.04.2011. The Board has rejected the appeal as per
the order and there is no further provision to statutorily challenge the said order. However, the appellant could have challenged the appellate order, which was not taken up within time. The appellant did not even in the writ petition seek an amendment to challenge the order produced by the respondents.
W.A.156 of 2018
- 3 -
3. The learned Single Judge found that the challenge to the original order itself was made after six years and the appeal against the original order passed in 2010 was also dismissed in 2011. The learned Single Judge, hence, refused to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution which, we are of the opinion, is perfectly in order.
The Writ Appeal would stand dismissed. No
costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE
Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Vku/-
[ TRUE COPY ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court Single Judge correctly refused to exercise discretion under Article 226 given the delay of six years in challenging the original order and the dismissal of the statutory appeal.
Whether the writ appeal should be allowed considering the appellant failed to challenge the appellate order within time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Retnakaran Pillai K.
State of Kerala
The Managing Director, Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corpn. Ltd.
The Manager, Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corpn. Ltd.
K. Vinod Chandran
V. G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
