IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18278 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SATYAPALAN S,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. SADANANDAN K.K., AGED 56 YEARS, KOCHURAMVELIYIL, KAIPPURAM,
MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 525
BY ADVS.
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
R.RANJANIE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY AND
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695
001
2 KAYAR VIKASANA DIRECTOR (REGISTRAR),
DIRECTORATE OF KAYAR DEVELOPMENT, KAYAR BHAVAN, NANDAVANAM,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM-695 033.
3 COIR FED,
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
NO.679, PB NO.4616, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 012, REPRESENTED
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
COIR FED REGIONAL OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE COIR
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO.679, PB NO.4616, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN- 688 012
SMT. PARVATHY .K-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022. The petitioner assails Ext.P7 order of the 3 rd respondent - Managing Director of the COIRFED, to the extent to which he has been granted regularization of service only with effect from 02.08.2017. The specific complaint of the petitioner is that even though this Court had, in Ext.P6 judgment delivered in an earlier round of litigation, directed consideration of his case on the basis of the orders issued in the case of identically situated persons, Ext.P7 has been now issued limiting the regularization only with effect from 02.08.2017, but without assigning any reason for it. The petitioner 3 W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
contends that, therefore, Ext.P7 to such extent, is illegal and unlawful.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the COIRFED, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, on the other hand, controverted the afore submissions of Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel for the petitioner, saying that in Ext.P6, this Court has not reflected upon the manner in which the COIRFED was to take a decision on the request of the petitioner. He submitted that, therefore, when an order of regularization is made, it can only be done prospectively and cannot be from an anterior date, as is now being sought for by the petitioner. He concluded his submissions saying that as long as this Court did not, in Ext.P6, direct consideration of the petitioner's claim to grant him regularization from an earlier date, such a plea 4 W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
in this writ petition is untenable.
In reply, Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel for the petitioner, affirmed that Ext.P6 did not specify the manner in which the COIRFED was to take a decision; the directions are very clear that Exts.P4 and P5 orders produced therein - which related to the regularization of certain similarly situated persons - were also to be taken into account, while orders with respect to her client was issued. She submitted that, therefore, Ext.P7, to the extent to which it has not even adverted to Exts.P4 and P5 orders mentioned in Ext.P6 judgment, therefore, certainly, therefore, cannot be granted approval by this Court.
I must say that I find force in the afore submissions of Smt.R.Ranjanie because, though this Court did not 5 W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
direct the COIRFED to act in a particular manner, it was certainly ordered to consider Exts.P4 and P5 orders mentioned in Ext.P6 judgment, which related to the regularization of certain similarly situated employees and in whose case, the petitioner asserts, they were given regularization from an earlier date. If this be so, certainly, the matter will require to be reconsidered from that limited perspective; and I am firm that petitioner entitled to such relief in this writ petition.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the 3 rd respondent to reconsider the date of regularization of the petitioner, adverting to Exts.P4 and P5 documents mentioned in Ext.P6 judgment and in terms of the directions therein, after affording an opportunity of being 6 W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible.
I make it clear that I have dealt with Ext.P7 only to the afore extent and that, in all other respects, it will remain unaltered.
Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise, regularization from an earlier date is found eligible to the petitioner, then all resultant and corollary benefits shall also be made available to him without any avoidable delay.
At this time, Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel for the petitioner, intervened to say that even the benefits based on Ext.P7 have not been yet made available to her client. If this be so and since Ext.P7 is otherwise without 7 W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
contest, I order the competent Authority of the 3 rd respondent - COIRFED, to make available to such benefits, notwithstanding the afore directions, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/29.06.2022.
8W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18278/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY COIR FED Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 25.4.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 17.02.2006, REGULARIZING SRI. E. SAJU IN THE RCP UNIT OF THIRD RESPONDENT, WITH EFFECT FROM 7.2.2006.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.138 DATED 2.8.2017, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2017, OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.
19 IN W.P.(C) NO. 18645/2019 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2020 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.3.2022 9 W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.4.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT