Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P.Chandra vs The State Of Kerala

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT:

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

         WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939

                          WP(C).No. 30965 of 2010 (U)
                          ----------------------------


PETITIONERS:
-----------

          1. P.CHANDRA,
            W/O THANKAPPAN,AGED 56 YEARS,
            SUPERINTENDENT,
            MATSYAFED, MANAKKAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          2. ELIZABETH KOZHY M.,
            AGED 54 YEARS,SUPERINTENDENT,
            MATSYAFED, DISTRICT OFFICE,
            THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5.


            BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)



RESPONDENTS:
-----------

          1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
            GOVERNMENT OF FISHERIES AND PORT DEPARTMENT,
            TRIVANDRUM. PIN-695001.

          2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES AND
            REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVES,
            VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

          3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
            FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
            (MATSYAFED) KAMALESWARAM, TRIVANDRUM,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. PIN-695001.


            R1 & R2  BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN
            R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, SC,
                        SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,
                        SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC, MATSYAFED


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON  22-11-2017,
       THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


EL

WP(C).No. 30965 of 2010 (U)
----------------------------

                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

P1         TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF ASSISTANT GRADE II IN THE
           MATSYAFED AS ON 1.9.1999

P2         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.4.1991 BY 1ST RESPONDENT

P2(A)      TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX TO EXT.2

P3         TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.3.98 BY 2ND REPSONDENT

P4         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.3.98

P5         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.10.03 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

P6         TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY FIXATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF SMT.RAJAMMA

P7         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.3.03 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

P8         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.04 BY 3RD RESPONDENT

P9         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.06 OF THIRD RESPONDENT

P10        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.3.01 OF SECOND RESPONDENT

P11        COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.12.06 BY THIRD RESPONDENT

P12        TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE
           3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.06

P13        TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.9.07 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

P14        TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.2.09 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

P15        TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.3.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT P16

P16        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.9.11 BY 3RD RESPODNENT

P17        TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)52/10/F&PD DATED 25.6.10

P18        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.10

P19        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.8.2010

P2O        TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.1.2006

P21        TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.11.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
           3RD RESPONDENT

P22        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.2.11 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN
           WPC.27848/03

P23        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.5.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDNET IN
           WPC.27848/2003

P24        TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MATSYAFED
           DATED 7.6.11

P25        TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF AGENDA TO BOARD MEETING

WP(C).No. 30965 of 2010 (U)
----------------------------

P25(A)     TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1280

P26        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.10.12 BY 3RD RESPONDENT

P27        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.7.15 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

P28        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDNET DATED 24.11.15

P29        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.1.16 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

P30        TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.5.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
           PETITIONER


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

R2(A)      TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.1.1999

R2(B)      TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.27848/2003

R2(C)      TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.5.2011

R2(D)      TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.11.10

R3(A)      TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F3/17128/98 DATED 6.1.1999

R3(B)      TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.1057/2003 DATED 2.8.2005

R3(C)      TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SENIORITY LIST ALONG WITH CIRCULAR DATED
           24.8.2009

R3(D)      TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F3/16523/2009 DATED 23.11.2010

R3(E)      TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.27848/2003 DATED 2.12.2010

R3(F)      TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MFED/E2/4427/2013 DATED 7.2.2014

R3(G)      TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.52/2010/F&PD DATED
           25.6.2010

R3(H)      TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F3/4207/2001/D.DIS DATED 3.3.2001



                                                            TRUE COPY



                                                           P.S. TO JUDGE

EL



                       A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
                    =========================
                        W.P.(C).No.30965/2010
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2017


                           J U D G M E N T

1. This writ petition was filed in the year 2010. As of now, two prayers in the writ petition survive for consideration which are as follows:

"iii. To declare that the petitioners are entitled for 3rd time bound higher grade to the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10,550 with effect from 1/7/2005, on completion of 23 years of service.
iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant cadre promotion to the petitioners as Superintendent and also as Assistant Manager, with effect from 3/3/2001."

As far as prayer No.3 is concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, at paragraph (10) it is stated as follows:

"10. Petitioners are however eligible for third time bound higher grade on completion of 23 years of service on 01.7.2005. On the basis of the options WPC 30965/2010 -:2:- submitted the proposal for sanctioning the 3rd time bound higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.10790- 18000 (pay scale admissible to Assistant Manager) was forwarded to the Registrar of Fisheries Co- operatives for approval. The 1st petitioner has not submitted her option for 3rd time bound higher grade on this scale."

In the light of the counter affidavit as above, this Court is of the view that all monetary benefits shall be given to the petitioners within a period of two months.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners claim interest for delayed payment. This Court is of the view that in regard to the interest portion, the petitioners are free to agitate in appropriate manner. The petitioners claim interest from the date on which the order is impugned. However, this Court may not be able to accede to the said request, as it is a disputed fact. However, it is to be noted that the counter affidavit is filed on 14/2/2014. So far, the petitioners are not given any benefit. In that view of the matter, certainly, the petitioners shall be given interest from WPC 30965/2010 -:3:- 15/2/2014 till it is disbursed at the rate of 9% per annum. The interest claimed for anterior period is left open. The monetary benefits as above shall be given to the petitioners within two months. It is made clear that both the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as above.

3. In regard to the fourth prayer, the question that survives for consideration is only with respect to the second petitioner, as the first petitioner has already retired from service. An interim order was passed by this Court on 13/2/2014. By virtue of the said interim order, the second petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager. Therefore, the claim for retrospective promotion of the second petitioner alone survives for consideration. To understand this, the brief facts involved in the case may be necessary, which are as follows:

By virtue of Exhibit P10 government order, a cadre promotion was introduced. The second petitioner was in the cadre of Personal Development and at that time the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from WPC 30965/2010 -:4:- 1/9/1990. By Exhibit P11 order, the second petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent. The second petitioner, admittedly, did not possess necessary educational qualifications. However, taking note of the fact that she had completed the age of 45 years, she was found eligible. This is how, she was promoted. She acquired the age of 45 on 2/2/2001. It is to be noted that the cadre promotion was first time introduced with effect from 3/3/2001. The second petitioner claims that she should have been promoted with effect from 3/3/2001 as Superintendent in the light of Exhibit-P10. She refers to Exhibit- P17 order by which probation period was reduced so as to give effect of immediate promotion to higher category. The petitioner also points out to Exhibit-P18, an order passed by the Managing Director of Matsyafed giving promotion to personnels in other cadre with effect from 3/3/2001. Exhibit P18 would show that the personnels in other cadre have been promoted with effect from 3/3/2001 to the post of Assistant Manager then to Deputy Manager and then to the post of Manager. The said proceedings were issued on 12/10/2001. Therefore it is clear that taking note WPC 30965/2010 -:5:- of the qualification of the personnels as on 3/3/2001, i.e. the date of introduction of the cadre promotion, retrospective promotions were given to personnels in other cadres. Exhibit P19 is also a similar order passed in the matter of Accounts Officer. However, after giving promotion to all these personnels, monetary benefits were restricted from 25/6/2010.

4. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the second petitioner being eligible to be promoted to the post of Superintendent as on date of introduction of cadre promotion, i.e. on 3/3/2001, the respondents cannot deny such promotion. This Court is also of the view that the second petitioner should be given promotion as Superintendent as on 3/3/2001 and further promotion on 3/3/2002 as given to personnels in other cadre. However, while doing so, certainly, the monetary benefits shall be at par with the benefits given to other employees in other cadres. It is also made clear that the promotion of the second petitioner to higher category will depend upon her eligibility and qualification. Needful shall be done in the light of WPC 30965/2010 -:6:- the above, to promote the second petitioner within a period of one month.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms