Allowed

Suchithra Surendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2022WP(C)/1061/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking reengagement after pregnancy leave was appointed on daily wages. Court held no right to maternity leave for daily wage worker; however directed college to consider claim for reengagement on daily wages if vacancy arises in future.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be considered for reengagement on daily wages as and when vacancy arises; liberty to apply.

Suchithra Surendran Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1061 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUCHITHRA SURENDRAN, AGED 26 YEARS
D/O. SURENDRAN, CHERIYEDATH HOUSE,
KANDANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 505

¶8

BY ADVS.
D.G.VIPIN
HAROON VASEEM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶11

2 SI-MET COLLEGE OF NURSING, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY, (SI-MET) PATTOR, VANCHIYOOR P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 035

¶13

4 DHANYA C.S, LD CLERK, SI-MET COLLEGE OF NURSING, PALLURUTHY-682 006

¶14

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SRI.JUSTINE JACOB
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SMT RESMI THOMAS-GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 1061/20

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she was engaged on daily wages as

¶20

Lower Division Clerk by the 2 nd respondent – ‘SI-MET College of

¶21

Nursing’, through Ext.P4, in the year 2017; and that she had to

¶22

avail ‘Maternity Leave’ thereafter. She says that, however, when she returned, she was not accommodated to the available post and that she was told that the 4 th respondent has been appointed against it, after a process of selection, on contract. She asserts that the 4 th respondent was appointed to a different post and that still one is remaining, to which she can be accommodated.

¶23

2 . The afore submissions of the petitioner, made by her

¶24

learned counsel – Sri.Vipin D.G., were answered by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, saying that the petitioner cannot impel any claim as afore because she has no vested right to seek

¶25

employment. He explained that, as is evident from Ext.P4, the petitioner was appointed only on Daily Wage basis and therefore, that she was not entitled to any leave - much less ‘Maternity

¶26

Leave’ - as has been claimed by her. He submitted that the

¶27

¶28

WPC 1061/20

¶29

petitioner left the employment for delivery and consequently,

¶30

that when she returned, it was up to his client to accommodate her or otherwise, depending upon the availability of posts or requirement. He submitted that, therefore, this Writ Petition, which appears to impel a vested claim, is not maintainable.

¶31

3 . Smt.Raji P. Mathews – learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any better right than her client, particularly when she had been appointed through a process of selection, after a written test and interview. She submitted that her client is working on contract and that the petitioner cannot seek to oust her, because she does not obtain any right, much less a better one.

¶32

4 . When I hear the learned counsel for the respondents as afore, I must say that I find favour with their submissions because, the petitioner cannot seek any right to be appointed in the services of the College, when she herself admits that she was appointed only on Daily Wage basis. Obviously, hence, one cannot gather on what basis she says that she was on ‘Maternity Leave’ because, normally, no such is available to a person

¶33

¶34

WPC 1061/20

¶35

working on Daily Wage basis. It is needless to say that a person

¶36

in such position is paid only for the days he/she worked and not

¶37

for those in which absence is marked.

¶38

5 . That being said, the claim of the petitioner against the 4 th respondent is also untenable for the same reason as afore,

¶39

even assuming her contention – that the 4 th respondent’s contract has expired – is true. She cannot claim any preference or right to be appointed to a post that may become vacant consequent to the termination/ expiry of contract to the 4 th respondent, but it is a matter which can certainly be decided by the College, as and when such an eventuality arises.

¶40

6 . Perhaps, being aware of the mind of this Court as

¶41

afore, Sri.D.G.Vipin submitted that his client also seeks that the

¶42

College be directed to engage her as and when any vacancy – not merely that of the 4 th respondent – arises in future.

¶43

7 . As I have already said above, these are issues fully within the realm of decision of the 2 nd respondent – College and not on which this Court can make any affirmative declarations.

¶44

However, this Court can certainly require the College to consider

¶45

WPC 1061/20

¶46

¶47

the petitioner’s request, as and when vacancy arises.

¶48

Resultantly, I allow this Writ Petition to the limited extent

¶49

of directing the competent Authority of the 2 nd respondent – College to consider the claim of the petitioner for being reengaged on Daily Wages, as and when vacancy or requirement arises; for which purpose, she is also given liberty to make suitable applications at the relevant time.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RR

¶52

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 1061/20

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1061/2020

¶57

`PETITION` `EXHIBIT`	`ER EXHIBITS` `P1`	`TRUE COPY` `FWD DATED`	`OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 85/2011/H&` `07.02.2011.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY` `143/2014/H`	`OF THE G.O(MS) NO.` `& FWD DATED 20.05.2014.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY` `& FWD DATE`	`OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 534/2017/H` `D 20.05.2014.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY` `11.8.2017` `IN FAVOUR`	`OF THE CALL LETTER DATED` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `OF THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY` `MET DATED` `RESPONDENT`	`OF ORDER NO. E/165/2017 SI-` `28.2.2019 BY THE 2ND` `.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY` `E/165/2017` `ISSUED BY`	`OF THE ORDER NO.` `/SI-MET DATED 12.6.2019` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY` `10.10.2019` `THE 2ND RE`	`OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED` `0 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO` `SPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY` `301/2017/C` `THE 2ND RE`	`OF THE LETTER NO. E-` `NP DATED 25.10.2019 ISSUED BY` `SPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY` `MET(2) DAT` `3RD RESPON` `INFORMATIO`	`OF ORDER NO.E/3055/2011/SI-` `ED 11/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE` `DENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO` `N ACT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY` `NO.E/3055/` `11/07/2019` `UNDER THE`	`OF THE ORDER` `2011/SI-MET(2) DATED` `OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER` `RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY` `NO.E/165/2` `OBTAINED B` `RIGHT TO I`	`OF THE ORDER` `017/SI-MET DATED 14/08/2019` `Y THE PETITIONER UNDER THE` `NFORMATION ACT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY` `MINUTES OF` `MEETING OF` `27/07/2018` `UNDER THE`	`OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `THE 18TH GOVERNING BODY` `SI-MET CONVENED ON` `OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER` `RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.`
`RESPONDE`	`NTS’ EXTS:`
`ANNEXURE`	`R3(A)`	`TRUE COPY` `OF THE 18T` `SI-MET HEL`	`OF THE RELEVANT PAGE MINUTES` `H GOVERNING BODY MEETING OF` `D ON 27.07.2018.`

¶58

WPC 1061/20

¶59

¶60

ANNEXURE R3(B)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
04.12.2018.
ANNEXURE R3(C)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.12.2018.
ANNEXURE R3(D)TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 10.06.2019.
ANNEXURE R3(E)TRUE COPY OF THE
GP(RT)nO.534/2017/H&FWD DATED
03.03.2017.
ANNEXURE R4(A)
TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 4.4.2015
ISSUED BY SI-MET
ANNEXURE R4(B)TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST RENEWED
CONTRACT

Suchithra Surendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchithra Surendran 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

K.R.Narayanan, Vs State of Kerala

Kannur Medical College Vs Mashood. C

The Principal, Kannur Medical College Vs Binu Samuel

Dr.Nevin K.G, Vs Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies

K.Baburaj Vs v.P.Subramanian

Mathew K.K. Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University