Dismissed

Sheela. a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2024WP(C)/19159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking promotion to Head Clerk with retrospective effect and correction of her post designation. The court cited significant delay and laches in filing the petition six years after superannuation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed due to laches and long delay in approaching the court after superannuation.

Sheela. a Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

WPC 19159/23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶6

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶7

WP(C) NO. 19159OF 2023

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SHEELA. A, AGED 60 YEARS D/O. SANKARAN (LATE), PADMAVILASOM, SIVANKOVIL ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695501

¶10

BY ADV MUHAMMAD SAJU. N

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶13

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE WOMEN' S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KSWDC), KSRTC COMPLEX, C 1ST FLOOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN P. O., EAST FORT, ATTAKKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695023

¶14

3 SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶15

BY ADV LATHA ANAND GOVT.PLEADER,SHRI.BIMAL K NATH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.06.2023, THE COURT ON 15.7.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 19159/23

JUDGMENT

(Dated 15th day of July 2024)

¶21

The petitioner retired from the service of the 2^nd respondent

¶22

Corporation as UD Clerk (UDC). She joined the service as LD Clerk (LDC). After qualifying the obligatory departmental tests, by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 22.2.2006, she was posted to the cadre of UDC with effect from 6.7.1998 against a post created as per Ext.P2. Later, by Ext.P4, the post of UDC was redesignated as LDC. The 2^nd respondent addressed the 1^st respondent, pointing out the errors on Ext.P4 regarding the redesignation of the UDC post to LDC. On 13.12.2014, the 1^st respondent informed the 2^nd respondent that the petitioner could be promoted to the post of UDC if she is otherwise eligible for the said post. The petitioner claims that she is eligible to be promoted to the next post as Head Clerk. The 2^nd respondent considered her application, and it was decided that a decision would be taken

¶23

¶24

WPC 19159/23

¶25

after the enhancement of the retirement age of the Corporation from 56 to 58. Though the retirement age was enhanced, the respondent has denied the eligible promotion to the post of Head Clerk till her retirement at the age of 58 years. Therefore, she has approached this court for a mandamus directing respondents Nos.1 and 2 to allow her the promotion of UDC from 6.7.1998 and Head Clerk with effect from 1.12.2014 and to pay full-service benefits with interest. A prayer is also sought to set aside Ext.P4, by which the post of UDC was redesignated as LDC.

¶26

A counter affidavit is filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 contending that the Board of Directors, in the meeting held on 15.10.2005, decided to promote the petitioner to UDC, which was created as per Ext.P2 Government Order. The petitioner retired from the service as LDC, since the post of UDC, which she was holding from 6.7.1998, was downgraded to LDC as per Ext.P4. Based on the office proposal dated 13.3.2013 and 28.10.2013 by the 2^nd respondent, the Government has informed

¶27

¶28

WPC 19159/23

¶29

that the petitioner can be promoted to the post of UDC if she is otherwise eligible. Since the UDC post was not included in the list of posts for staff pattern, the 2^nd respondent has taken the matter to the Government for allowing the 9^th and 10^th Pay Revision to the employees. But the Government rejected the same as per Ext.R2(j) dated 18.3.2022. The Corporation's Board meeting rejected the petitioner's request for promotion to the post of Head Clerk on 29.4.2016. Moreover, she was placed under suspension from 16.7.2011 to 22.3.2013 and several disciplinary proceedings, including vigilance enquiry is pending against her from 2001 onwards. She was awarded a punishment of barring of increments for 6 months without cumulative effect. The petitioner retired on 30.4.2017, and it is the first time that the issue regarding the promotion in the year 1998 has been taken up after 6 years of superannuation. Therefore, there is long delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the

Writ Petition.

WPC 19159/23

The third respondent also filed a counter affidavit in the

¶34

same line as of the counter filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶35

Ext.P2 is the Government Order dated 26.12.1995, by

¶36

which the post of UDC was created in the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram. The method of appointment is specifically stated as being from a deputation from government service. By Ext.P1, the petitioner working as LDC was promoted to UDC with effect from 6.7.1998. Later, the Government passed Ext.P4 order on 10.12.2010, downgrading the post of UDC to LDC. Therefore, there has been no UDC post from the date of Ext.P4. Later, by Ext.P6, the Government informed the 2nd respondent that the petitioner could be promoted to the post of UDC if she is otherwise eligible for the said post after declaration of probation and promotion in the category of clerk-typist, test qualification, etc. Ext.P4 is the order by which the post of UDC was downgraded to LDC. The said order is dated 10.12.2010. The petitioner retired from the

¶37

¶38

WPC 19159/23

¶39

service as UDC on 30.4.2017. She has not chosen to challenge Ext.P4 until 2023 by filing this petition. It is also brought to the notice that though she continued as UDC based on Ext.P1, no proceedings have been initiated to recover any amount from her pursuant to the passing of Ext.P4. The petitioner requested that she be promoted to UDC, effective from 6.7.1998, and to Head Clerk, effective from 1.12.2014. As stated earlier, there has been a long delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching

¶40

this court, and that too after 6 years of her superannuation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶41

SD/-

¶42

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

dl/

WPC 19159/23

`PETITIONER`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE`	`COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. KSWDC/A4/ESSTT./82/89`
	`DATED 22.`	`02.2006`

¶48

`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `26.12.95`	`THE ORDER GO (MS) NO. 49/95/SWD DATED`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF`	`THE CERTIFICATE NO. 5830/98 DATED 06.07.98`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `10.12.2010`	`THE ORDER GO (MS) NO. 92/2010/SWD DATED`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 18.06.2016`	`THE LETTER NO. KSWDC/EAL/1635/16/3620`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `13.12.2014`	`THE ORDER NO 301/B3/2012/SJD DATED`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 11.11.2022`	`THE RTL REPLY NO. KSWDC/RTL/1353/2022/4648`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 18.04.2022`	`THE RTI REPLY NO. WCDD-B3/155/2022-WCDD`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`APPLICATION DATED 27.03.2015`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `29.04.2016`	`MINUTES NO. 06/133/2016-17 DATED`

¶49

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit R2(f)True copy of the G.O.Rt.No.L54/98/SWD dated 01.08.98

¶51

Exhibit R2(i)True copy of the Letter No.301/B3/2012/SJD dated 13.02.2014
Exhibit R2(j)True copy of the letter No.WCD-B3/62/2021-WCD dated
18.03.2022
Exhibit R2(k)True copy of the Government Order G.O.No.102/2018/SJD dated
27.02.2018
Exhibit R2(a)True copy of the Government Order No.
G.O.(MS).No.92/2010/SWD dated 10.12.2010
Exhibit R2(b)True copy of the Government Order No.
G.O.(MS).No.7/2001/SWD dated 28.02.2001

¶52

Exhibit R2(c)True copy of the G.O.(MS).No.15/94/SWD dated 18.07.94

¶53

¶54

WPC 19159/23

¶55

Exhibit R2(d)True copy of the Proceedings No.KWWWSA.1/81 dated 17.10.88

¶56

Exhibit R2(e)True copy of the letter dated 13.01.1998

¶57

Exhibit R2(g) True copy of the Government Order G.O.(MS).No.49/95/SED dated 26.12.1995

¶58

Exhibit R2(h)True copy of the proceedings dated 22.02.2006

¶59

Exhibit R2(l)True copy of the G.O.(MS).No.92/2010/SWD dated 10.12.2010

¶60

Exhibit R2(m)True copy of the minutes of the meeting and decision in
item No.06/133/2016-17

¶61

Exhibit R2 True copy of the decision No.8/141/2017-18 dated 12.05.2017
(n)
Exhibit R3 True copy of the GO(MS) No. 7/2001/SWD dated 28.02.2001
(a)
Exhibit R3 True copy of the GO(MS) No. 15/94/SWD dated 18.07.1994
(b)
Exhibit R3 True copy of the GO(MS) No.49/95/SWD dated 26.12.1995
(e)
Exhibit R3 True copy of the Proceedings No. KSWDC/A4/Estt/82/89 dated
(f)22.02.2006
Exhibit R3 True copy of the letter No..301/B3/2012/SJD dated
(g)13.02.2014
Exhibit R3 True copy of the letter No.WCD-B3/62/2021-WCD dated
(h)18.03.2022
Exhibit R3 True copy of the decision No.06/133/2016-17 in the meeting
(i)held on 29.04.2016
Exhibit R3 True copy of the Proceedings No. KWWWSA.1/81 dated
(c)17.10.1988
Exhibit R3(d)True copy of the Government Order GO(Rt) No. 154/98/SWD
dated 01.08.1998.
Exhibit R3 True copy of the letter No.WCD-B3/62/2021-WCD dated
(j)18.03.2022

Sheela. a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela. a 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

George P.T Vs State of Kerala

N.v.Kareem Vs the Divisional Railway Manager

Sindhu B. Vs the State of Kerala

Vibeesh Vs the Secretary

Subhash P, Vs Secretary

Abraham Isaac Vs the District Collector