Kerala High Court
M/S. Nakshatra Gold & Diamonds vs Nakshatra Gold And Diamond Llp on 7 July, 2025
WA NO.1386/2025 1
2025:KER:49444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1386 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.28960 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
CHANDRAMATHI P P,
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O.PRABHAKARAN,
RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670594
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHAIRMAN,
NIRMITHI KENDRA/DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, P. O. CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
2 THE MEMBER SECRETARY
NIRMITHI KENDRA, SUB COLLECTORS OFFICE COMPOUND,
GUNDERT ROAD, THALASSERY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670101
WA NO.1386/2025 2
2025:KER:49444
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2025, THE COURT ON 07.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1386/2025 3
2025:KER:49444
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M.,J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28960 of 2023. Appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P., and respondents were the respondents therein.
2. Appellant had filed the W.P.(C) seeking to direct the respondents to regularise her appointment with effect from 2001 onwards and to sanction her all the service benefits from the said date. A direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Ext.P2 representation preferred by her had also been sought in the W.P.
3. The learned Single Judge had vide the impugned Judgment dismissed the W.P. inter alia holding that the appellant had no right and the respondents had no corresponding duty to regularise her appointment with effect from 2001. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, this appeal has been filed.
4. Heard Sri. Abdul Rauf Pallipath, Advocate for the appellant, WA NO.1386/2025 4 2025:KER:49444 Sri.Cibi Thomas, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, Senior Government Pleader for the 3 rd respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment had been rendered erroneously and without looking into the legal and factual aspects involved. He contended that the appellant is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering and has been working with the 2nd respondent from 1999 onwards. She was given a permanent appointment from 2001 onwards only after she moved the Women's Commission and the Human Rights Commission seeking redress. The learned counsel contended that the appellant is entitled to get her appointment regularised with effect from 2001 onwards and for all service benefits that would consequently follow therefrom. The learned counsel alleged that as regards the appellant, there has been a denial of equal treatment of all employees, and the respondents had been giving promotions and increments in salary to persons of their choice, while denying the legitimate rights of the appellant.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 WA NO.1386/2025 5 2025:KER:49444 contended that the Governing body meeting of the respondent held on 01.08.2003 had decided to allow the appellant to continue in Nirmithi Kendra on a stipend eligible for supervisor trainees. The Governing Body meeting held on 26.04.2004 had considered the request of the appellant to post her as a Site Engineer, and it was found that she was not eligible for such appointment. Based on the request made by the appellant, the Sub committee constituted for the purpose had submitted a report before the Governing body and the Sub committee taking note of the fact that appellant had been working in Nirmithi Kendra for more than 12 years in the post of trainee supervisor, had recommended for posting her as Work Superintendent. It was also recommended that the appellant had to work in the revised post on probation for one year, and her performance was recommended to be evaluated by the member secretary, ex-secretary and project engineer during the relevant period. The Governing Body had discussed the Sub Committee report and decided to accept the same, and thereafter her services were regularised with effect from 2013. It is contended by the learned counsel that the decisions thus taken by the Governing body WA NO.1386/2025 6 2025:KER:49444 were purely based on the performance of the petitioner and that even though she was irregular in her duties, the Governing body was benevolent enough to regularise her service from 2013. Hence, the prayer put forth by the petitioner to regularise her appointment with effect from 2001 onwards and to sanction her service benefits from the said date is legally unsustainable and not fit to be granted. It is also submitted that the appellant is due for retirement on the completion of 58 years and that her husband is a retired employee from the cooperative sector. Her daughters are Bank employees, and the contention that three daughters are dependent on her apart from her unemployed husband is thus devoid of merit.
7. We have heard both sides in detail and have also considered the respective contentions put forth. It is noted that the 2nd respondent had vide Ext.P1 dated 06.06.2019 conveyed the decision that had been taken concerning regularisation of the appellant and had concluded that her performance in the past years was not satisfactory. Since such remarks had been expressed by the Governing body on her performance and attitude, the Committee had decided not to consider her past service in regularisation. WA NO.1386/2025 7
2025:KER:49444 Though the appellant admits that she came to know about Ext.P1 communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the District Labour Officer, and the decision reflected therein, which is of the year 2019 the appellant had not challenged or objected to the same within a reasonable time. No relief had been sought in the W.P.(C) challenging such decision.
8. In the light of the above, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant has not been able to point out any law which would suggest that she has got a right for regularization with effect from 2001 and that if she had any grievance regarding her regularization, she would have moved this Court at an earlier point of time, is valid and pertinent. The learned Single Judge had rightly concluded that the appellant had approached this Court only in the year 2023, that is, 10 years after the date of her regularisation, which had been effected from 04.01.2013.
9. As regards the relief for disposal of Ext.P2 representation made in the W.P.(C), we note that the appellant had preferred Ext.P2 on 26.06.2023. She had then chosen to move the Court by filing the W.P.(C) on 22.08.2023, inter alia, seeking the WA NO.1386/2025 8 2025:KER:49444 disposal of the said representation. It is trite and settled that a new cause of action cannot be created, and the delay that had already been incurred cannot be condoned by merely filing fresh representations. If the appellant had a grievance that she ought to be regularised from 2001 onwards and not from 2013, she should have taken appropriate steps immediately upon being so regularised in service. The WP filed belatedly in the year 2023 in this respect is not sustainable in law. The learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the same.
For the above, we see no cause or reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl WA NO.1386/2025 9 2025:KER:49444 APPENDIX OF WA 1386/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TYPED COPY OF EXT P1