Disposed

Yajith K.Y. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2022WP(C)/7669/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction for appointment of petitioner as a daily wage abkari worker under the 25% quota for dependent sons. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the first respondent to reconsider the application based on the Court's earlier order inclusion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders within three months after hearing.

Yajith K.Y. Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

YAJITH K.Y.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O LATE YESHPAL K.B.
KOTTUKKAL HOUSE
MULLASSERY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680509
BY ADVS.
DEEPU THANKAN
UMMUL FIDA
LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
R.RAJANANDINI MENON
SHAHNAS K.P

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 KERALA ABKARI WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD - KAWWFB THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

REP.BY ITS CHIEF WELFARE FUND OFFICER, PIN - 695001

¶12

3 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695010

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

GP VENUGOPAL V; SC FOR BEVCO T. NAVEEN; SC FOR KAWWFB S.
KRISHNAMOORTHY

¶16

¶17

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2022

¶22

The petitioner's father, an abkari worker, committed

¶23

suicide on 03.11.2000, unable to withstand the pressure of having lost his only means of livelihood, when the Abkari shops were closed down based on the Governments policy to stop vending of arrack in the state. In view of large number of suicides among abkari workers consequent to the closing down of abkari shops, the Government formulated a policy to rehabilitate the dependents of the perished abkari workers by offering daily wage employment to the dependant son. Accordingly, the Government issued order dated 28.11.2004 and by on 28.07.2005, invited applications from eligible dependants. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation on 02.08.2005 and later, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.25517 of 2009 resulting in a direction to the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector of the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶26

Board to consider the petitioner's request. Accordingly, the petitioner's claim was considered and rejected under Ext.P10 finding that the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years as on 07.08.2004. The Government affirmed Ext.P10 order vide Ext.P11 proceedings. Thereupon, the petitioner again approached this Court challenging the decisions. That writ petition was disposed by Ext.P13 judgment, directing reconsideration of the petitioner's claim. Accordingly, the claim was considered and the petitioner’s name included among the eligible applicants at Ext.P14.

¶27

In spite of such inclusion, the petitioner was not given appointment and in the meanwhile, some of the aggrieved applicants approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.20409 of 2015, resulting in Ext.P4 judgment wherein this Court held that the claim of dependents of an abkari worker who had died prior to 07/08/2004 and who were minors at the time of inviting the application by the Chief Welfare Fund

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶30

Inspector, shall be considered by the Government if such claim is made within reasonable time after attaining the age of majority.

¶31

Based on direction in Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner submitted another representation on 15.11.2021. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to issue necessary orders to the third respondent Corporation to appoint the petitioner as daily wage abkari worker under the 25% quota earmarked for dependent sons of the abkari workers.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had submitted the first application on 02.08.2005, which was well within time and his name was included in Ext.P14 list of eligible applicants. The petitioner was forced to submit another application since he was not given appointment in spite of inclusion in Ext.P14 and the declaration of this Court in Ext.P4 that persons like the

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶35

petitioner, who were minors as on 07.08.2004, are also entitled for appointment. It is hence contended that the applications submitted by the petitioner should be taken to have been filed within reasonable time and the first respondent directed to issue necessary order appointing the petitioners.

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader would contend that it is the prerogative of the authority to decide whether the application was filed within time.

¶37

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition, directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P15 application taking into account the petitioner's contention that the applications seeking appointment were filed within reasonable time, as evidenced by his inclusion in Ext.P14 list and to pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording an opportunity of

¶38

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

hearing to the petitioner. The order, as directed above, shall

¶41

be passed within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

RK

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7669/2022

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

`Exhibit P-1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE FIRST`	`THE` `RESP`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED` `ONDENT DATED 7/8/2004`
`Exhibit P-2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `IN THE MATHRU` `28/7/2005`	`THE` `BHOO`	`NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED` `MI DAILY NEWSPAPER DATED`
`Exhibit P-3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `HIGH COURT OF` `4318/2010 DAT`	`THE` `KER` `ED 0`	`JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE` `ALA IN W.P.(C) NO.` `8/11/2013`
`Exhibit P-4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `COURT IN W.P.` `08/11/2016`	`THE` `(C)`	`JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE` `NO. 20409/2015 DATED`
`Exhibit P-5`	`A TRUE COPY O` `HON’BLE COURT` `DATED 27/2/20`	`F TH` `IN` `18`	`E JUDGMENT OF THIS` `W.P.(C) NO. 40972/2016`
`Exhibit P-6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO.1159/2019`	`THE` `DATE`	`JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).` `D 17/07/2020`
`Exhibit P-7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 24/3/20`	`THE` `21`	`GO(RT)NO.239/2021/TAXES`
`Exhibit P-8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 03/11/2`	`THE` `000`	`POST MORTEM CERTIFICATE`
`Exhibit P-9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `2/8/2005`	`THE`	`APPLICATION DATED`
`Exhibit P-10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT DA`	`THE` `TED`	`ORDER OF THE 2ND` `2/11/2009`
`Exhibit P-11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BEARING NO.14` `21/8/2010`	`THE` `133/`	`LETTER OF THE GOVT.` `R1/10/LABOUR DATED.`
`Exhibit P-12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE PETITI` `DATED 22/02/2`	`THE` `ONER` `013`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P-13`	`TRUE COPY OF` `COURT IN WPC` `11/03/2013`	`THE` `NO.`	`JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE` `6607/2013 DATED`

¶50

WP(C) NO. 7669 OF 2022

¶51

9

¶52

Exhibit P-14TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DEPENDENT SONS
PREPARED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BOARD
Exhibit P-15TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15/11/2021
Exhibit P-16TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE
COURT IN CCC NO. 77 OF 2021 DATED
27/10/2021

Yajith K.Y. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yajith K.Y. 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.J.George, Vs State of Kerala

Shyam S Menon Vs Aravindakumar

State of Kerala Represented by Special Tahsildar (La)(Railways) Vs Mohanan

Aswathy U Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary

K.a.Stephen Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala