Disposed

Sukumaran K.K v. Ankamaly Municipality

Kerala HC21 Jan 2021WP(C)/1642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization of his temporary service as a driver. The Court held that the alternative remedy of filing a representation was exhausted and directed the Secretary of the Municipality to decide the representation expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary of the Municipality to dispose of the petitioner's representation within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Sukumaran K.K Vs Ankamaly Municipality — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1642 OF 2021(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUKUMARAN K.K AGED 57 YEARS DRIVER, ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY, ANKAMALY, P.B. NO. 30, 683 572, ANKAMALY, ERNAKULAM 683 572.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN SMT.APARNA RAJAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANKAMALY P.B. NO. 30, 683 572.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANKAMALY, P.B. NO. 30, 683 572.

¶12

SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN - SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.1642 OF 2021 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner says that he is working as

¶17

a Driver in the services of the 1^st respondent

¶18

– Municipality and that he was engaged on

¶19

temporary basis from the year 2000 onwards.

¶20

The petitioner asserts that he is

¶21

entitled to get his service reqularized with effect from the date of appointment, subject

¶22

to the seniority and that he has preferred Ext.P11 representation seeking such benefits. He alleges that, however, no action has been taken on Ext.P11 as of now and prays that same be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the Secretary of the Municipality at the earliest.

¶23

In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas, the

¶24

learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, Shri.P.P.Thajudeen, submitted that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P11

¶25

WP(C).No.1642 OF 2021 3

¶26

representation be taken up and disposed of, there is no legal impediment in the same being done, but prayed that this Court may not make

¶27

any affirmative declaration as to the

¶28

entitlement of the petitioner to any relief and leave it to be decided by the competent Authority, in terms of law.

¶29

4. When I consider the afore

¶30

submissions, it is without doubt that even

¶31

though the petitioner has made various allegations and averments in this Writ Petition, same cannot be looked into by this Court on its merits at this stage because,

¶32

admittedly, he has invoked his alternative remedy by preferring Ext.P11 representation before the 2 nd respondent. I am, therefore, of

¶33

the firm view that said Authority must be

¶34

directed to dispose of the same as per law.

¶35

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶36

writ petition and direct the 2 nd respondent –

¶37

Secretary of the Municipality to take up Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner and

¶38

WP(C).No.1642 OF 2021 4

¶39

dispose of the same, after affording him an opportunity of being heard – either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment .

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

MC/23.1.2021

¶44

WP(C).No.1642 OF 2021 5

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. (MS) 14/82/LBR DATED 22.04.1982.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) 91/2001 DATED 29.03.2001.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM TO ALL THE SECRETARIAT OF MUNICIPALITY DATED 4.12.10.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM DATED 07.12.2010
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM DATED 23.01.2014.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM O THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.02.2014.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.16.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 996/2018 DATED 05.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. HI-7005/06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 16.10.18.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.20. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

NIL

Sukumaran K.K v. Ankamaly Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran K.K v. Ankamaly Municipality

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

Aparna Mohan Vs the State of Kerala

Sheeja V.G. Vs Perumbadappu Grama Panchayath

S.Mohankumar Sumanam Vs the Institute 0F Management in Government

Ayswarya P.A. Vs Ajayan

Saritha E.K. Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Nambiar Vs the State of Kerala