Allowed

Rasna Raveendran M.C., v. the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Kerala HC3 Aug 2020WP(C)/12885/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted probation declaration to an Assistant Manager whose appointment order remained upheld. The court held that pendency of a vigilance case and a writ appeal did not constitute a legal bar to conferring service benefits based on actual service rendered.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the refusal order and direct the respondents to declare the petitioner's probation and grant consequential benefits within stipulated timelines.

Rasna Raveendran M.C., Vs the Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.12885 OF 2020(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RASNA RAVEENDRAN M.C., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O JITHESH.P.K, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION.P.O,KANNUR-670002. RESIDING AT PARAMMAL HOUSE,POOKKODE.PO, PATHAYKKUNNU, KANNUR-670691.PH-94956400671.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SMT.N.R.REESHA SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B.NO.1727,WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI-682016.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, P.B.NO.1727, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI-682016.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.12885 OF 2020(I)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner, who has been working as

¶18

Assistant Manager from 02.02.2016 onwards under the respondents is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents in declaring her probation.

¶19

2. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

¶20

Manager as per Ext.P2 order dated 27.01.2016, after a regular process of selection, based on her rank in Ext.P1 rank list. Even though the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Manager was challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.9964/2016 and connected cases, this Court upheld the same in Ext.P3 judgment dated 03.04.2018.

¶21

3. As the respondents did not declare her probation, though she completed the requisite one year period of service from the date of her joining in 2017 itself and even after her representations, she approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.25299/2019, when the 2^nd respondent was directed to consider her representation. The 2^nd respondent

¶22

WP(C).No.12885 OF 2020(I)

¶23

¶24

thereafter rejected the same as per Ext.P4 order stating that a writ appeal is pending against Ext.P3 judgment and that a Vigilance Case is also pending before Vigilance Court,

¶25

Thiruvananthapuram against the appointment of Assistant Managers in the year 2016. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order.

¶26

4. The learned Standing Counsel has filed a statement on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the Finance Department of State Government conducted an inspection in the respondent Corporation on 03.03.2020, pursuant to which the inspection report was forwarded to the Corporation as per Ext.R1(a) letter. It is stated that the inspection team found very serious irregularities in the selection conducted for appointment to the post of Assistant Managers and therefore the Corporation has been directed to take appropriate action in the matter after the disposal of the Vigilance Case, which is pending.

¶27

WP(C).No.12885 OF 2020(I)

¶28

¶29

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no interim order is passed in the writ appeal filed against Ext.P3 judgment. It is stated that the petitioner is unaware of the pendency of any Vigilance Case with respect to the appointments.

¶30

6. Having considered the contentions on both sides, I find that mere pendency of writ appeal cannot be a justifiable ground for not declaring probation. As long as Ext.P3 judgment is not interdicted in any manner, petitioner would be entitled to be granted all service benefits on the basis of her actual service from 02.02.2016 based on her appointment on 27.01.2016. The further ground stated is the report based on an inspection conducted by Finance department on 03.03.2020 and also the pendency of a Vigilance Case. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P4 order dated 09.03.2020, declining the request of

¶31

petitioner, does not refer to any inspection

¶32

WP(C).No.12885 OF 2020(I)

¶33

¶34

stated to have been conducted on 03.03.2020. The Vigilance Case appears to be in the stage of a preliminary enquiry. Petitioner is not implicated in any court of law and she does not have any knowledge or notice on it. Therefore there is absolutely no legal impediment in declaring the probation of the petitioner on the reasons stated.

¶35

Therefore Ext.P4 shall stand set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to pass orders on declaration of probation of petitioner on the basis of the service rendered by her from 02.02.2016 onwards in accordance with the rules governing the employees of the Warehousing Corporation, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and to grant her all consequential benefits within a further period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It

¶36

is made clear that it would be up to the

¶37

WP(C).No.12885 OF 2020(I)

¶38

¶39

respondents to take appropriate action in case anything is found against her in the Writ Appeal or the Vigilance Case, which is stated to be

¶40

pending.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶42

disposed of.

¶43

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶44

¶45

WP(C).No.12885 OF 2020(I)

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.KSWC/ADMN 14/APPTS/AM/2015-16 DATED 27.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER APPOINTING HER AS THE ASSISTANT MANAGER IN THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.04.2018 IN W.P(C)NO.9964/2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KSWC/EST/PF/ RRMC/2019-20 DATED 09/03/2020.

Rasna Raveendran M.C., v. the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasna Raveendran M.C., v. the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

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

Valsa A.A. Vs Government of Kerala

Bindu George Lpsa Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Ani S.Das Vs State of Kerala

Ranjini Gopalan Vs Sajitha N.Nair

T. Vijayan Vs Mr. B.S.Thirumeni

The President, Kesari Arts and Science College Vs Mahatma Gandhi University