Allowed

Harikumar.K v. the University of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2020WP(C)/8233/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged denial of performance allowance, contending official registers replaced work diary requirements. Court found University directive discriminatory as work was recorded in official registers; allowed petition and directed payment within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to disburse performance allowance to petitioners for the due period within one month of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

Harikumar.K Vs the University 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 AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 HARIKUMAR.K AGED 47 YEARS XT.C.85/496, SREEDHALAM, KOZHIYOTTU LANE, ARA 132, PALKULANGARA, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.

¶8

2 RAJAN P.S. T.C.86/2268, LALITHA BHAVAN, VA-1, VAYYAMOOLA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.

¶9

3 MANUEL DAS A.J. SAMANWAYAM ST.JUDE NAGAR, PERUKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶13

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶14

3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE, CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶15

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT-IN-CHARGE KERALA UNIVERSITY PRESS, KERALA UNIVERSITY, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶16

R1-4 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 14th day of October 2020

¶22

Petitioners three in numbers have approached this Court seeking direction to the 3^rd respondent to disburse the performance allowance as they have been shown as ineligible for the performance allowance in the list on account of the reasons, which according to the averments in the writ petition, are not sustainable.

¶23

The first petitioner is currently working as Senior Foreman and the second and third petitioners as Junior Foreman in the Printing Section of the University press. The Government of Kerala issued an order dated 29.3.1989 promulgating Rules as regards the eligibility of the employees for the disbursement of the performance allowance. As per the guidelines the technical employees who fail to show a minimum out turn during the incremental period will not be eligible for performance allowance. It also stipulates that the technical staff who were awarded major penalties under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules will not be eligible for the allowance.

¶24

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶25

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4^th respondent in the meanwhile issued an office order stating that all Junior and Senior Foremen shall maintain work diary pertaining to their day to day official duties and the same shall be produced for verification when required. As per Ext.P6, the 4^th respondent in the remarks portion stated that the performance of the duty of the petitioners and 2 other employees as not satisfactory. It is submitted that the work done by various employees in the printing section of the University are regularly recorded on day to day basis in the work register, Register of work distribution, intent book, transit register and other official registers maintained at the University and therefore, there is no requirement of a separate work diary to evaluate their daily performance of duty. Thereafter, another list separately showing the list of eligible and ineligible employees for the disbursement of the performance allowance, was issued and the petitioners were included in the list of ineligible employees, for the reasons stated therein, which according to the petitioners, are completely arbitrary and unfair.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the University Sri.Thomas Abraham submitted, in spite of repeated direction to

¶28

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶29

¶30

maintain work diary and also to furnish the same at the time of assessment for performance allowance, the petitioners did not pay heed to the same. It is also submitted that during the financial year 2017-18, three persons in the rank of Senior Foremen and three persons in the rank of Junior Foremen and during the financial year 2018-19 four persons in the rank of Senior Foremen and four persons in the rank of Junior Foremen submitted their work diaries and performance allowance was sanctioned to them based on their respective performance. The first respondent repeatedly issued warning memos on 27.10.2017, 25.09.2018 and 08.02.2019 citing disruption of office decorum and insubordination. Work diary is taken as a criterion in respect of Foremen for getting performance and ex-gratia allowance and other employees in the same rank of petitioners have submitted the same for verification for the last two years. It is also submitted that as per Ext.P8 University Order dated 26.11.2018, performance allowance in respect of the ineligible employees as per the report of the Superintendent in Charge, Kerala University Press will be considered only after obtaining clarification regarding their eligibility. The Superintendent incharge of the Kerala University Press as per the letter dated

¶31

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶32

¶33

11.01.2019 had reported that the work diaries of concerned period in respect of Sri.K.Surendakumar, Senior Foreman and Sri.R.George Thomas, Junior Foreman had been verified and that they were found eligible to get Performance Allowance for the financial year 2017-18 and the same was disbursed to them.

¶34

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

¶35

It is stated in Ext.P4 that the payment is to be effected subject to all the conditions specified in Ext.P1 Government Order and the list of eligible employees for receiving performance allowance each year is forwarded by the Superintendent in-Charge, Kerala University Press and payment effected accordingly. Clause 11 of Ext.P1 is extracted herein below:

¶36

“The Technical employees for whom a specific minimum out-turn of work has been prescribed, but who fail to show the minimum out-turn during the incremental period ending on any date during the year will not be eligible for the allowance.”

¶37

Vide Ext.P5 a direction was given by the 4^th respondent

¶38

to maintain work diary by the junior and juniormost foremen. The aforementioned direction in my view is not exercise of powers as per Ext.P1. There is no provision under the Kerala

¶39

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶40

¶41

University Act to issue such directions, ie. with regard to the maintenance of work diaries. However, work done by the employees in the printing section of the University is recorded on day to day basis in the work register, register of work distribution, intent book, transit register and other official registers maintained at the University. Therefore, the steps now taken by the University, in my view is clear act of discrimination. If at all there was any non-compliance by non-recording of work in official registers as referred above, the University ought to have taken appropriate steps against the particular employee. In the absence of any such steps, this Court cannot form an opinion contrary to the contentions raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by issuing directions to respondents to disburse performance allowance for due period to the petitioners, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.

Sd/

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. MS. NO.67/89/H.EDN DATED 29.3.1989. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1589/2018/H.EDN DATED 23.8.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.6.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.AD.DIII.1.40511/2018 DATED 23.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KUP/ESST./WD/2017 DATED 31.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.8.2018 ADDRESSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES.

¶51

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH TEH LIST.

¶52

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD DIII.1.40511/2017 DATED 26.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶53

EXHIBIT P9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶54

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD.D.III.1.40511/2017 DATED 2.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

¶55

WP(C).No.8233 OF 2020(D)

¶56

¶57

EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED 8.7.2019 IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.AD.D.III.4.405 ISSUED BY THE RES	LETTER 11/2017 DATED 7.9.2019 PONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COY OF THE L ISSUED BY THE IST	ETTER DATED 18.9.2019 PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ALONG	LETTER DATED 16.1.2020 RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD WITH THE LIST.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE 22.1.2020 SUBMITT BEFORE THE 2ND RE	REPRESENTATION DATED ED BY THE PETITIONERS SPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE 23.1.2020 SUBMITT BEFORE THE 3RD RE	REPRESENTTION DATED ED BY THE PETITIONERS SPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE DIII.1.2566/2020 THE RESPONDENT UN	ORDER U.O.NO.AD DATED 31.1.2020 ISSUED BY IVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OFTHE R 21.3.2019 SUBMITT BEFORE THE PUBLIC	TI APPLICATION DATED ED BY THE IST PETITIONER INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P17(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PUBLIC INF 12.4.2019 TO THE	REPLY/COMMUNICATION ISSUED ORMATION OFFICER DATED IST PETITIONER.

Harikumar.K v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikumar.K v. the University 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

Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Dineshan K.K. Vs v. Sambashiva Rao

Abhi Dev a.G, Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

The Windsor Castle, Vs the State Tax Officer

St. Marys Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner

Dr.Deepa R. Vs the University Grants Commission