Kerala High Court
Kerala Agricultural University vs T.Goodwin on 16 September, 2015
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
W.A.No.2287 of 2016 IN WP(C)7154/2009
--------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7154/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
16.9.2015
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP 268/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
18.10.2016
APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:
------------------------------------------------
1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
VALLANIKKARA, TRISSUR-680 656.
2. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST,
VELLANIKKARA, TRISSUR-680 656.
4. THE REGISTRAR,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST, VELLANIKKARA,
TRISSUR -680 656.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KERALA A
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 1ST RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------------------------------
1.T.GOODWIN
G.B. BHAVAN, KUZHIVILA, PAYATTUVILA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.
2.P. VICTOR,
LEELA BHAVAN, MANNOTTUKONAM, PAYATTUVILA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.
3.G. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,
NO.XI, 315 TP, VARUVILA POTHER VEEDU,
KEEZHOOR, KOLIYOOR, MUTTAKADAVU PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.
4.K. JAYAKUMARAN,
CHARUVILA VEEDU, KEEZHOOR, KOLIYOOR,
MUTTAKADAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 527.
W.A.2287/16 IN WP(C)7154/2009
:: 2 ::
5.S. SURESHKUMAR,
S.V.NIVAS, MOOLAKARA, KAZHIYOOR PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 551.
6.G. RAJENDRAN,
PANAVILA THEKKIRIKU VEEDU, MULLOR PO,
VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.
7. V JOSE,
N.J.SADANAM, NELLIYODE, THIRUVALLAM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.
8.STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION
COMMISSIONER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
R BY SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-11-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & SHIRCY.V, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal No.2287 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of November,2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
1. aKerala Agricultural University, its Executive Committee and its officials have filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)7154/09 and R.P.268/16. The said writ petition was filed by the party respondents herein, who are casual labourers of the Coconut Research Station, Balaramapuram. Their claim was essentially for the benefit of Ext.P1 Government Order ordering regularisation of casual labourers, which was adopted by the Unviersity and implemented by Ext.P2 order. By the judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and ordered that regularisation of the employees be given with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancies subsequent to W.A.2287/16 : 2 : Ext.P1. Appellants sought review of the judgment by filing R.P.268/16. By order dated 18th October 2016, the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition. It is in these circumstances, the appeal is filed.
2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala.
3. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were working as casual labourers in the Coconut Research Station, Balaramapuram. Ext.P1 is the order dated 24.11.99 issued by the Government of Kerala ordering regularisation of casual labourers, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. As per Ext.P2 order dated 13.3.2000, the University adopted Ext.P1 order, subject to the terms specified therein. However,the benefit of regularisation was not extended. The writ petitioners moved this court, which resulted in Ext.P3 judgment in O.P.12837/2000 where this court W.A.2287/16 : 3 : declared their entitlement of regularisation in terms of Ext.P1. Acting upon Ext.P3, by Ext.P4 order dated 11.8.2008, they were regularised in service, but, however, with prospective effect. It was complaining that though Ext.P1 order was issued as early as on 24.11.99 and that regularisation was effected only in the year 2008, after a delay of 8 years, the present writ petition was filed contending that the writ petitioners were entitled to be regularised against the vacancies which arose subsequent to Ext.P1 order. It is this relief, which was granted by the learned Single Judge.
4. Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are inclined to think that the petitioners were legitimately entitled to the relief for the reason that in Ext.P3 inter party judgment this court has already declared the entitlement of the writ petitioners for the benefit of regularisation as envisaged in Ext.P1.
5. If that be so, the writ petitioners were entilted to be regularised in the vacancies which arose subsequent to Ext.P1. W.A.2287/16 : 4 : This precisely is what the learned Single Judge granted. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY.V JUDGE jes // True copy // P.A.to Judge