Partly allowed

K.Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2022OP/7708/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed an order removing the petitioner, Managing Director of SFCK, down to General Manager without consent. The Court directed the Government to reconsider the pay scale issue with an opportunity of hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside; Government directed to reconsider matter after giving opportunity of hearing within three months.

K.Sivaprasad Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.SIVAPRASAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2 ADDL.R2: MATSYAFED (KERALA STATE CORPORATE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED HEAD OFFICE, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695009 3 ADDL. R3: THE STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., (A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FARM HOUSE, P.B.NO.13, VETTITHITTA POST (VIA) ALIMUKKU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH, SC, STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED

¶12

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶14

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

------------------------------

¶17

O.P.No. 7708 of 2003

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The above Original Petition is filed with the

¶21

following prayers:

¶22

“(a) call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Ext.P5.

¶23

(b) to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 pending disposal of the Original Petition.

¶24

(c) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to retain his lein as Managing Director State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd. as borne out by Ext.P2.

¶25

(d) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice and allow this O.P. ”[SIC]

¶26

The Original petition is filed mainly challenging

¶27

Ext.P5 order. The brief facts are like this:

¶28

In 1987, the petitioner underwent a selection

¶29

¶30

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶31

process conducted by Public Enterprises Selection Board, Government of Kerala and in the year 1988 he was appointed as Managing Director of State Farming Corporation of Kerala (for short SFCK). He was appointed on deputation basis from Matsyafed initially for a period of 5 years which was later extended for a further period of 2 years. The period of 7 years expired on 16.6.1995. On 16.6.1995, the Government extended the deputation of the petitioner until further orders. The Matsyafed objected to the extension of deputation for such a long period and the Government directly addressed a letter to the Managing Director, Matsyafed informing that steps are being taken to shift the lien of the petitioner from Matsyafed to SFCK. Exhibit P1 is the letter. Subsequently, as per order dated 16.8.1995, the lien of the petitioner was shifted on a permanent basis as Managing Director, State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd., as per Exhibit P2 order on the basis of the

¶32

¶33

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶34

decision of the cabinet. When the lien of the petitioner was shifted as Managing Director of SFCK, there was no scale of pay attached to the post of Managing Director, SFCK. Hence the matter was taken up with the Government and the Government after examining the issue, fixed the scale of pay of Managing Director of SFCK as per Ext.P3. From the above, it is clear that the lien of the petitioner was shifted from 'Matsyafed' to SFCK as the Managing Director and further the scale of pay was fixed in Schedule B. As per order dated 31.12.1996, the petitioner was posted as the Managing Director of Horticultural Products Development Corporation on deputation. Subsequently the Government as per order dated 24.9.1998, appointed the petitioner as Managing Director of Kerala State Film Development Corporation which was also on deputation. After completing 3 years, the petitioner is posted as the Managing Director of Plantation Corporation of Kerala

¶35

¶36

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶37

Ltd. In all these deputation postings, he was drawing the salary of the post of Managing Director of SFCK. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation for revision of pay scale as evident by Ext.P4. In the representation the petitioner submitted that since his scale of pay was not revised every five years, he was drawing a lower scale than his subordinate officers and requested to rectify the anomaly. In the said representation, the petitioner received a reply dated 14.2.2003 as evident by Exhibit P5. As per Ext.P5, the lien of the petitioner was shifted to the post of General Manager in SFCK in the scale of 10,000 - 15,150. According to the petitioner, this is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that, this order has been passed by the Government for which nobody had a claim or dispute. It is submitted that the issue raised in Ext.P4 is different and Ext.P5 order has no nexus with the claim made in Ext.P4. It is submitted that, there was no consent from

¶38

¶39

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶40

the petitioner also before shifting the lien. It is also submitted that the shifting of the lien to the post of General Manager, SFCK is without the consent and concurrence of the petitioner. It is specifically contented in the writ petition that the lien to a post can not be shifted at the whims and fancy of the Government. The scale of pay of the post of General Manager as shown in Ext.P5 is 10,000 - 15,150. It is the case of the petitioner that, had the petitioner continued in Matsyafed in 1997, the petitioner would have drawn the scale of 14,300 - 400 - 18300. A comparative table of the scale of pay drawn by the petitioner is extracted in the Original Petition which is also extracted hereunder:

¶41

year	Matsyafed Executive (Prodn & Processing)	Secretariat Addl. Secretary	SFCK G.M.
1984	3350-125-4100	2250-3350 (Sp.pay 200)	1950-2950
1987	3675-140-5115	2825-4095 (Sp.pay 300)	2470-3675
1992	No Revision	4200-5300 (Sp.pay 300)	3000-100-5000
1997	14300-400-18300	14000-18000 (Sp.pay 300)	10000-15150

¶42

¶43

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶44

Based on the above contention, the petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order.

¶45

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the additional 2^nd respondent. I also heard the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the 1^st respondent.

¶46

This Court perused Ext.P5 order. The contention raised by the petitioner in this Original petition regarding the anomaly in fixing the scale of pay is not properly considered in Ext.P5 order. According to me, the Government should reconsider the matter in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Original petition. To facilitate the Government to reconsider the matter, Ext.P5 can be set aside.

¶47

Therefore, this Original Petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶48

i) Ext.P5 is set aside. ii) The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the

¶49

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶50

¶51

matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

iii) All the contentions raised by the petitioner

¶53

in this Original petition are left open.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

APPENDIX OF OP 7708/2003

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.30.6.1995 SENT BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER NO.GO(MS)271/95/AD DT.16.8.1995 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS)271/96/AD 16.5.1996. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 11.8.2000 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS)NO.32/2003/AD DT.14.2.2003. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER NO.GO(MS)175/95/ID DT.2.11.95. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER NO.GO.MS.22/98/PIG DATED 9.7.98.

¶62

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶63

EXHIBIT R3(1) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO (MS) NO.190/88/AD DATED 03.06.1988. EXHIBIT R3(2) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.390/88/AD DATED 06.12.1988. EXHIBIT R3(3) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(RT) NO.1038/93/AD DATED 11.08.1993. EXHIBIT R3(4) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.271/95/AD DATED 16.08.1995. EXHIBIT R3(5) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.271/96/AD DATED 16.05.1996. EXHIBITR3(6) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT

¶64

OP NO. 7708 OF 2003

¶65

¶66

EXTRACT OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE BOOK WITH THE ENTRY OF PAY FIXATION STATEMENT. EXHIBIT R3(7) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.1802/96/AD DATED 31.12.1996. EXHIBIT R3(8) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.22/98/PLG DATED 09.07.1998. EXHIBIT R3(9) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.47/98/CAD DATED 24.09.1998. EXHIBIT R3(10) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO.32/2003/AD DATED 14.02.2003. EXHIBIT R3(11) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R3(12) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(RT) NO.230/2004/ID DATED 26.06.2004. EXHIBIT R3(13) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.SFCK/PER/KSP/2952 DATED 09.10.07. EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 09.10.2007.

¶67

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

K.Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sivaprasad 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

Dhamodharan Pillai Vs the Assistant Engineer & Another

Mubaraq Granites Vs Sri. V.R Premkumar IAS

Sailesh Mohan Sharma, Director Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Prameela

Prameela Vs Alexander

The Kodungalloor Town Co-Operative Bank Vs M.K.Surendra Babu and Others