Disposed

K.Devadasan, v. the Director

Kerala HC21 Feb 2024WP(C)/1949/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning casual labourers denied Dearness Allowance. The Court held the matter relates to a Central Government institution, though interlocutory relief under the Administrative Tribunals Act was not invoked. Petitioners were directed to file a representation with the Director, who must consider the claim. Permitting hearing, an opportunity was granted.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to consider the representation filed by the Petitioners within two months after affording opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioners.

K.Devadasan, Vs the Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.DEVADASAN, AGED 50 YEARS KARAYULLATHIL HOUSE, AVADUKKA P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

2 K.RAJAN, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, PERUVANNAMUZHI P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

3 V.P. MOHANAN, VARAPPURATHU HOUSE, KADIYANGADU P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

4 K. PADMANABHAVAN, KAPPIYIL HOUSE, KADIYANGADU P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

5 N.P. PADMANABHAN, MALAPPOYIL HOUSE, NECHADU P.O., NADUVANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

6 K.K. RAJAN, MOYORAKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, PERUVANNAMUZHI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

7 P. SOMAN, PARIYARATHU HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O., PIN - 673 525, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶14

8 T.S. RAVEENDRAN, THANDASSERY HOUSE, PERUVANNAMUZHI P.O., PERMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

9 K.K. BALAN, KARUVARAKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, CHEMBANODU P.O., PERUVANNAMUZHI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶16

10 N. SAJEEVAN, NADUKKANDI HOUSE, KADIYANGADU P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶18

2

¶19

`11`	`T.K. PADMANABHAN,` `THIRIKKODUMMEL HOUSE, KADIYANGADU P.O., PERAMBRA` `VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`12`	`K. SATHEESAN,` `KARAYULLATHIL HOUSE, AVADUKKA P.O.,` `PERUVANNAMUZHI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`13`	`T.P. DAMODARAN,` `THEKKE PERUVANAMEETHEL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR P.O.,` `MEPPAYUR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`14`	`M.P. MURALEEDHARAN,` `MADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANDORAPPARA P.O., KAYANNA` `VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`15`	`V. RADHAKRISHNAN,` `VAZHAYIL HOUSE, PERUVANNAMUZHI P.O., PERAMBRA` `VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`16`	`K.M. SUDHEER,` `KAYAMANNIL HOUSE, CHANIYAM KADAVU P.O., PONMERI,` `VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`17`	`K. SHANMUGHAN,` `KAMMADATHU HOUSE, CHEMBANODU P.O., PERUVANNAMUZHI` `VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`18`	`C. GANGADHARAN,` `CHEROTHU HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR P.O., MEPPAYR,` `KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`19`	`VIJAYAN M.P.,` `SOUHRIDAYA,KOOTHALI P.O., PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE` `DISRICT.`
`20`	`P.V. SURESH,` `PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PERUVANNAMUZHI P.O.,` `PERAMBRA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`
`21`	`JOHNSON GEORGE,` `THAYYIL HOUSE, MUTHUKADU P.O., PERUVANNAMUZHI` `VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.`

¶20

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

22P.A. BINOY,
PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, PERUVANNAMUZHI P.O., PERAMBRA
VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶23

23K.J. SILAS,
KAKKATHURUTHIL HOUSE, MUTHUKDU P.O.,
PERUVANNAMUZHI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶24

BY ADV K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN

¶25

RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1THE DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH (IISR),
MARIKKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 012.

¶27

2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH (IISR), MARIKKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 012.

¶28

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC
SRI. T.C. KRISHNA, SC

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioners are casual labourers working under the Indian Institute of Spices Research (IISR). They are aggrieved by the fact that the Dearness Allowance sanctioned in terms of Ext.P6 Government Order have not been extended to them. It is their specific case that though Ext.P6 is an order in respect of State Government employees, the same was being extended to persons like the petitioners, who are working as casual labourers under the 1^st respondent.

¶34

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have filed an affidavit raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court in the light of the fact that this is a service matter relating to employees of a Central Government institution, which has to be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is also submitted that the contention taken on behalf of the petitioners that the benefits granted by Ext.P6 Government Order in respect of regular employees of the State Government must be extended to casual employees working under

¶35

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

the 1^st respondent is also not tenable. It is submitted that notwithstanding the preliminary objection raised, the respondents have no objection if this Court were to direct the consideration of Ext.P7 or any other representation that may be filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the representation will be considered and disposed of, in accordance with the law, after affording opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioners.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the claim put forth by the petitioners through the Perambra Area Estate Labour Union CITU – IISR (Ext.P7) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioners to file any supplementary representation before the 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The 1^st respondent shall consider the claims raised by the petitioners as directed above, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the 1^st petitioner or his authorized representative.

¶39

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶43

¶44

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2016` `ISSUED BY THE OFFICE – IISR – INDIAN` `INSTITUTE OF SPICES RESEARCH`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `19.12.2012 ISSUED BY IISR.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)` `8/17/AGRICULTURE DATED 17.05.2017`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER` `AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.02.2019 FILED BY THE` `RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) NO.26226/18`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `06.03.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.26226/18`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)` `NO.44/2019/FIN. DATED 04.04.2019`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `23.09.2019 BY LABOUR UNION OF THE` `PETITIONERS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED` `22.08.2019 ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT` `DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL FARM, KOOTHALI`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA` `NO.1049/2008 DATED 5.1.2009 ON THE` `FILES OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF` `KERALA`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED` `IN W.P.(C) NO.7764/14 AND 12379/14` `DATED 10.4.2015`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN` `WA.NO.1768/15 DATED 28.10.15 ON THE` `FILES OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT`

¶49

WP(C) NO. 1949 OF 2020

¶50

¶51

Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE
SUPREME COURT IN PETITION(S) FOR
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(S) NO.(S)
10770/16 AND 10771/16

K.Devadasan, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Devadasan, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chummaru, S/O Varghese Vs N S K Umesh Ias, the District Collector

Mr. Ajithkumar M. Vs Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Mr.Ajith Kumar M.

Ambily Jo Vs Jo Augustin

E.B.Premanathan Nair Vs Assistant Registrar(General)

Sadasivan Pillai Vs the Federal Bank Limited