Dismissed

The Commissioner v. Ramachandran Embranthiri

Kerala HC7 Jan 2020WA/2399/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Malabar Devaswom Board challenging a Single Judge's order granting continuity of service to a temple employee who took long medical leave. The Court held that the Board could not treat the re-appointment as fresh and directed the disbursement of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; direction to comply with the Single Judge's judgment and disburse arrears within two weeks.

The Commissioner Vs Ramachandran Embranthiri — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.2399 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1208/2015(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANTS:

¶10

1 THE COMMISSIONER

¶11

MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPAAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006.

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM 676 505

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 RAMACHANDRAN EMBRANTHIRI

¶16

AGED 53 YEARS

¶17

S/O. LAKSHMANAN EMBRANTHIRI 53, PUTHUMANA MADAM SANTHI POOKKATTIYOOR, MAHADEVA KSHETRAM, EDAYOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM 676 505

¶18

2 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, POOKKATTIYOOR MAHADEVA KSHETRAM, EDAYOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM 676 552

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI.MOHAN.C.MENON AND SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.A No.2399/2019 2

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 07^th day of January, 2020

¶25

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶26

Malabar Devaswom Board(for brevity “the Board”) is in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge which directed the petitioner in the writ petition to be granted continuity of service from January 1983.

¶27

2. The short facts required to be noticed are that the petitioner in the writ petition joined as a Santhi in Pookkattiyoor Mahadeva Kshetram in January 1983. The petitioner continued for 24 years. On 05.08.2007 he is said to have submitted application for long leave on medical grounds specifically for reason of suffering from rheumatism. The petitioner continued on leave up to 16.08.2011, after which he rejoined duty. The Trustees also accepted his rejoining duty. The

¶28

W.A No.2399/2019 3

¶29

Board, however, treated his appointment as a fresh appointment effective from the date of the resolution taken by the Trustees as evident from Ext.P8. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Board which has been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has been granted continuity of service from the initial date of appointment.

¶30

3. The learned Standing Counsel argued

¶31

that the Board apprehends that a re-appointment has been made especially since there are no medical records available to prove the ailment asserted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is

¶32

a report of the Inspector produced as Ext.R1(b), which found on enquiry that the petitioner had resigned from service and there was also an advertisement issued in the Mathrubhumi for appointment of Santhi to the particular temple. The Board hence is of the opinion that the

¶33

W.A No.2399/2019 4

¶34

petitioner can be appointed only as a fresh appointee without enabling continuity of service.

¶35

4. There is nothing on record to show that

¶36

the petitioner had resigned from service. The submission of the petitioner that he had proceeded on long leave due to his rheumatic complaints is supported by the Executive Officer as also the Trustees. The report of the Inspector relied on by the Board is one dated 28.05.2013 long after the re-joining of the petitioner. There is nothing in the report to indicate as to how the Inspector came to the conclusion that the petitioner had resigned from service. If it is merely on the basis of a notification for fresh appointment; the same is said to have been published in the Mathrubhumi dated 11.09.2007. Obviously there ought to have been a person appointed to the leave vacancy, since the petitioner was on long leave.

¶37

5. There is also no notification made

¶38

W.A No.2399/2019 5

¶39

after 2011 in which event only the petitioner's re-appointment could be said to be pursuant to a fresh notification for appointment. In fact the report at Ext.R1(b) concludes with the statement that from 01.09.2007 to 16.08.2011 the petitioner

¶40

had kept himself away from employment and rejoined duty on 17.08.2011. The specific recommendation is

¶41

that he can be included in the schedule of establishment. There is nothing in Ext.R1(b) indicating that this could only be made on a prospective basis. In fact it is the Board which decided the inclusion to be on a prospective basis which we find was rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

¶42

6. The learned Standing Counsel relies on

¶43

the Trustees' recommendation which according to him is again indicative of the appointment being possible only as a new one. Having gone through the vernacular recitals in Ext.P8, we are convinced

¶44

W.A No.2399/2019 6

¶45

that the Trustees specifically directed the rejoining of the petitioner to be approved. The Trustees noticed the circumstances of the petitioner having remained on leave for a long period due to medical condition and his rejoining as also his satisfactory discharge of duties after re-joining. The proposal was also to include him in the schedule of establishment which inclusion has to be made for the purpose of disbursement of salary. This does not mean that the inclusion has to be only as a fresh appointment. The 24 years of service he had with the Temple cannot be effaced especially when the Executive Officer appointed by the Board had submitted that there was a leave application submitted on the ground of rheumatic complaints of the petitioner. We quite agree with the learned Standing Counsel that ideally there should have been a medical certificate as also a

¶46

fitness certificate produced at the time of

¶47

W.A No.2399/2019 7

¶48

re-joining. This has not been done which can only be said to be a defect on the part of the Executive Officer and cannot be put against the petitioner or his continuity of service interfered with on that sole ground.

¶49

7. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and Writ appeal is dismissed. The direction of the learned Single Judge shall be complied, within a period of one month and the temple shall disburse the entire arrears due to the petitioner within two weeks

¶50

thereafter. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.

¶51

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶52

Sd/V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.

¶53

Jma/

The Commissioner v. Ramachandran Embranthiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Ramachandran Embranthiri

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

Union of India Vs P.Sivaraman

Union of India Vs K.S.Surendranath

The Southern Railway Vs K. Natarajan

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Vs Sukumaran S.

Commissioner of Customs Vs M.K.Saseendran

Union of India Vs P. Padmakumar