Kerala High Court
P.K.Harikumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.23254 OF 2016(R)
PETITIONERS:
1 P.K.HARIKUMAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
2 G.ANILKUMAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
3 N.K.HARIDAS, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
4 S.MADHUSUDANAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
5 E.K.KUNHIKANNAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
6 M.RAJAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE
CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
7 K.P.SUNILKUMAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
8 SHIBU C.K., CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE
CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN
682 031.
9 K.K.NAZAR, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR GRADE
CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
10 P.KRISHNAMOORTHI, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
WPC 23254/16
2
11 K.DEVADASAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN 682 031.
12 U.K.RAJASEKHARAN, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY
SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
13 A.V.RADHESHYAM, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY SENIOR
GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
14 R.REGHUNATHAN PILLAI, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I,(FORMERLY
SENIOR GRADE CHAUFFEUR),HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
15 MANOJ D, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
16 SANTHOSH K.J, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY
CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
17 S.MONEY, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
18 JALESH V.K, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
19 JIFI ABRAHAM, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY
CHAUFFEUR GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN 682 031.
20 GIRI V.K, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
21 ANILKUMAR S, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
WPC 23254/16
3
22 P.D.ANTONY, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
23 BIJISH V.C, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,PIN
682 031.
24 BINU J, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
25 E.S.NOUFAL, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
26 RAJESH M.S, CHAUFFEUR GRADE-II,(FORMERLY CHAUFFEUR
GRADE-I),HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN 682 031.
BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682 031.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
SMT.BHARGAVI - SC - HC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 23254/16
4
JUDGMENT
The Chauffeurs of the High Court of Kerala
are the petitioners in this writ petition and
they seek various reliefs.
2. However, on account of efflux of time
and certain developments pending this lis, the
sole question that survives is as to whether
the recommendations of the Honourable the
Chief Justice, for sanctioning two additional
posts of Head Chauffeurs, have been properly
dealt with by the Government, while they
rejected it.
3. The records show that the Honourable
Chief Justice framed Rules under Article 229
of the Constitution of India and forwarded the
same to the Government under the provisions of
Article 229(2) of the Constitution. It
transpires that Government acceded to many of
the recommendations therein, but certain
anomalies remained with respect to others; and
WPC 23254/16
this led to the Registrar General of this
Court to issue Ext.R2(b) letter, dated
17.07.2018, to the Additional Chief Secretary
of the Government, pointing out this and
calling upon the Government to reconsider
those recommendations of the Honourable Chief
Justice, which had been declined or not
considered, enclosing the list of such
anomalies thereto as Annexure(A).
4. One among the anomalies mentioned in
Annexure(A) to Ext.R2(e) was with reference to
the number of posts of Head Chauffeurs to be
increased from one to three. However, in spite
of this letter, no action was taken by the
Government, but filed a counter affidavit on
record, wherein, they adopt the stand that
creation of posts does not come under the
purview of Pay Revision and therefore, that
the recommendations of the Honourable Chief
Justice cannot be accepted.
WPC 23254/16
5. The Registrar General of the High
Court, on the other hand, has filed a counter
affidavit, wherein, various recommendations
made by the Honourable the Chief Justice have
been touched upon and those with respect to
creation of two posts of Head Chauffeurs are
available in paragraph 12 thereof, which is
extracted for ease of reference as under:
12. The recommendation made by the
committee treating non-sanctioning of
two posts of Head Chauffeurs, as an
anomaly was not accepted by the
Government. On the other hand,
Government by a letter dated
28.04.2018, rejected the proposal for
sanctioning of two post of Head
Chauffeurs in the High Court stating
that,
"Creation of posts is not an
issue referred to Pay Revision
Commission and does not come under
the purview of pay revision. Hence
the proposal stands rejected.
A True copy of that Government
letter dated 28.04.2018 is produced
herewith and marked as Exhibit-
R2(d) for identification. At present
the only anomaly that remains to be
rectified as far as Chauffeurs are
concerned is the one relating to non
sanctioning of 2 posts of Head
Chauffeurs.
6. I have heard Sri.V.Varghese - learned
WPC 23254/16
counsel appearing for the petitioners;
Smt.V.P.Seemanthini, learned Senior Counsel,
instructed by Smt.Bhargavi P. - appearing on
behalf of the High Court of Kerala and
Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
State of Kerala.
7. When I proceed to consider the
dialectical contentions of the parties as
recorded afore, I must bear in mind that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has spoken exhaustively
on the manner in which the Government is
expected to act under Article 229(2) of the
Constitution of India in State of Rajasthan
and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and Others
[2019(4)SCT360(SC)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has made it apodictic that the proviso to
Article 229(2) of the Constitution does not
reflect 'an architecture of hierarchy' and
that 'the correct constitutional approach is
WPC 23254/16
one of comity between different institutions
working under the Constitution'. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court went on to further say that 'the
emphasis is not on the supremacy of one
institution or demarcating the boundaries of
the other .... but about ensuring
institutional integrity of one while
respecting the functional domain of the
other'. The judgment makes it limpid that the
constitutional provisions are meant 'to
facilitate dialogue of governance between high
constitutional functionary and that a healthy
dialogue, perhaps even a debate is necessary
for an efficient constitutional polity'.
8. The opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is, therefore, unmistakable that
Government cannot sit over the recommendations
made by the Honourable Chief Justice under
Article 229 of the Constitution, as if it is a
superior or an appellate authority; but what
WPC 23254/16
is necessary is an approach of comity in
considering the recommendations within the
proviso to the said Article.
9. When one applies the views of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of this
case, it becomes perspicuous that the sole
reason why the posts, as recommended by the
Honourable Chief Justice, have been declined
is because Government feels that said
recommendations are 'not within the purview of
the Pay Revision', but it fails to take into
account the fact that these were made also
taking into account the functional
requirements as far as the High Court is
concerned.
10. It is here that the emphatic holdings
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra
Mundra (supra) comes into play and I am
certainly of the view that the stand now
adopted by the Government cannot, therefore,
WPC 23254/16
appeal to this Court in any manner whatsoever.
11. That apart, the petitioners have now
produced on record certain information which
have received under the Right to Information
Act and this shows that, in the Tourism
Department of the Government of Kerala, the
number of posts of Head Chauffeurs have been
revised to four.
12. I cannot, therefore, find any reason
why the Government should now stick on to
their position that creation of Head
Chauffeurs in the cadre of the High Court is
not within the confines of the Pay Revision
and cannot be then granted. I am left with no
doubt that this cannot obtain favour in law
and therefore, deem it necessary to allow this
Writ Petition to that extent.
In the afore circumstances, this Writ
Petition is allowed and the Government is
directed to grant concurrence to the
WPC 23254/16
recommendations of the Honourable Chief
Justice with respect to the posts of Head
Chauffeurs, as contained in Ext.P14 and
reiterated through Ext.R3(e), and to issue
appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as
is possible, but not later than two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 23254/16
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23254/2016
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE KERALA HIGH COURT SERVICE RULES
2007.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A2-
76452/2014 DATED 25.09.2014.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.03.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.22364/2006
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.07.2008 IN W.A.NO.1505/2008 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25.01.2010 IN SLP NO.C.C.21584/2009
OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)
NO.48/2010/HOME DATED 15.02.2010.
EXHIBIT-P6(A): TRUE COPY OF G.O.
(MS)NO.257/2011/HOME DATED
18.11.2011.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(MS)NO.553/2011(22)/FIN DATED
18.11.2011.
EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(MS)NO.412/2012/(107)/FIN DATED
23.07.2012.
EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER
NO.45186/C2/2012/HOME DATED
18.03.2013.
EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J5-
23685/2012/FW DATED 18.04.2013 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
WPC 23254/16
EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(RT)NO.2095/2014/HOME DATED
25.07.2014.
EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(MS)NO.35/2015/FIN DATED 16.01.2015.
EXHIBIT-P13: TRUE COPY OF ERRATUM AND ADDENDUM TO
EXT.P12.
EXHIBIT-P14: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
D.O.NO.FW/J3-49631/2014 DATED
06.11.2015.
EXHIBIT-P15: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(P)NO.180/2016/HOME DATED 20.06.2016
ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
APPENDIX-I AND II.
EXHIBIT-P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FW/J3-
49631/2014 DATED 22.06.2016 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 29.06.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P18: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE G.O.(P) NO.7/2016/FIN. DATED
20.01.2016.
EXHIBIT-P19: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-
91286/2010 (2) DATED 31.01.2012 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P20: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-
91286/2010(2) DATED 01.04.2011 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P21: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-
18573/2012 DATED 24.08.2012 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P22: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-
WPC 23254/16
91286/2010 DATED 11.06.2013 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P23: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-
14719/2005(3) DATED 17.12.2007 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P24: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-
91286/2010 DATED 18.10.2012 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P25: TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP OF THE
8TH PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE
2016.
EXHIBIT-P26: TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF
PETITIONER NO.22.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.19/2018/HOME
DATED 28.04.2018
EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT
CHAUFFEURS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE
HIGH COURT DATED 04.10.2013.
EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
NO.FW/J3-49631-2014 ISSUED BY THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
23.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF G.O(p)
NO.19/2018/HOME DATED 28.04.2018.
EXHIBIT R2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
NO.FW3-49631/2014 DATED 17.07.2018.
