Allowed

Adv.P.P.Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021WP(C)/14653/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government counsel who continued officiating after his appointment term expired by efflux of time was held to have acted in good faith. The court directed the respondent to pay his dues within one month if he attended office during the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to pay amounts due to petitioner within one month of receipt of judgment copy, ensuring attendance during interim.

Adv.P.P.Biju Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14653 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ADV.P.P.BIJU, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. PATHROSE, PAINADATH, KARIYAD, MEKKAD P.O., ALUVA, PIN-683 589.

¶8

BY ADVS. VINOD RAVINDRANATH MEENA.A. K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH THAREEQ ANVER K. ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY LAW SECRETARY, LAW (INSPECTION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2 LAW SECRETARY, LAW (INSPECTION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO. 14653 OF 2021

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner was appointed as the Government Counsel at the Munsiff Court, Aluva for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or on attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. He took charge on 15.12.2016. He attained age of 60 years on 29.11.2019. According to the petitioner, this was brought to the notice of the second respondent and it was rejected by the second respondent by Ext.P7 order. Since alternate arrangements were not made, he continued till new appointment was made. The new appointment was made on 18.02.2021. According to him, Ext.P3 application was submitted for grant of his remuneration, which was rejected by the second respondent by Ext.P7 order. This is under challenge in the above proceedings. Ext.P7 discloses that the request for wages was rejected on the ground that, his term of

¶21

WP(C) NO. 14653 OF 2021 3

¶22

appointment expired on 29.11.2019. Hence, his claim for the period beyond that date, during which he claims to have appeared for the Government, cannot be sanctioned.

¶23

It is an admitted fact that the term of the petitioner expired on 29.11.2019. No arrangement was made thereafter. The petitioner was not terminated from service formally nor directed him not to continue in office. It was an automatic termination by efflux of time. It cannot be said that the petitioner continued thereafter, without the knowledge of the Government. According to the petitioner, he continued to attend cases since no other person was appointed and otherwise the Government will stand unrepresented.

¶24

Evidently, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was directed not to continue after expiry of his term. The Rules are silent. The appointment order does not say that he shall not

¶25

WP(C) NO. 14653 OF 2021 4

¶26

continue, after expiry of his term.

¶27

Having considered this, I am inclined to hold

¶28

that the petitioner acted bonafide and in the best interest of Government. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did not appear for the Government and represented for the Government, during the interregnum. Hence, there will be a direction that the respondent shall pay the amounts due to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 and after ensuring that the petitioner attended the office during these days. The amount due shall be paid as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶30

Sd/- /-

¶31

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶32

R.AV

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 14653 OF 2021

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14653/2021

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(MS) NO.204/16/LAW DATED 2.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.12.2016 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 30.4.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.6.2021 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Adv.P.P.Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv.P.P.Biju v. State of Kerala

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

Badarish S. Vs Kerala Gramin Bank

Unnikrishnan Pillai D. Vs State of Kerala

Sobha.B.S., Vs Varkala Municipality

Reghu a. N. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Smitha S., Vs Harikrishnan .S.

Geetha Bhai.M.S, Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies