Kerala High Court
C.Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.262 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28164/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 16.12.2020
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
C.BHASKARAN
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN,
ASARIVILAKATH VEEDU, THALIYIL KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695002.
BY ADV. SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 KERALA STATE COUNSEL FOR CHILD WELFARE,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KERALA STATE CHILD WELFARE,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 P.SASIDHARAN NAIR,
AGED 46 YEARS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR CHILD WELFARE,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(UNDER SUSPENSION) RESIDING AT
LALITHA VILASOM TC 49/100, MUDAVANMUGAL,
POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.
SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.262/2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the writ petition
challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.28164
of 2020 dated 16.12.2020. The judgment reads thus:
"The petitioner claims to be a life member of Kerala State
Council for Child Welfare and that he is a social worker. He
apprehends that the executive committee, which is directed by
Ext.P1 judgment to take a decision in respect of the claim of the
4th respondent for certain service benefits, would consider his
request without reference to vigilance cases/proceedings and
seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to place Ext.P3 and
connected files for appreciation of executive committee while
considering the 4th respondent's representation.
2. The request of the petitioner to be considered is with
respect to the claim of the 4th respondent for certain service
benefits. When there is a direction from this Court to consider
the claim of the 4th respondent for his service benefits, it is upto
the executive committee to consider the same in accordance
with law
3. I am of the view that it is not necessary for this Court to
issue any further direction on it, that too, at the instance of the
petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly."
W.A.262/2021
2. The subject issue relates to the direction secured by the
4th respondent in the writ petition namely, one P. Sasidharan Nair, in the
judgment in W.P(C). No.11820 of 2020 to consider the claims raised by
him for his service benefits. The point that is raised by the appellant is
that the 4th respondent is not eligible to consider for any post in the
Council and on account of gross misappropriation of funds, he was
placed under suspension. It is also stated that 4 th respondent filed
W.P(C). No.20874 of 2015 and this Court has set aside the suspension
taking into account the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 2389]. But the
case advanced by the appellant is that the 4 th respondent was involved
in rank misappropriation, which was subjected to investigation by the
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram Unit and it
has submitted the final report, evident from Exhibit P3 and further that
the sanction for prosecuting the 4th respondent is pending consideration
before the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram.
The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the appellant is
that if the appellant is given an opportunity to participate in the
proceedings as per the direction issued by this Court in W.P(C).
No.11820 of 2020, the appellant would be in a position to place all the
legal position in regard to the release of service benefits to the 4th
W.A.262/2021
respondent and the consequences arose due to the report of the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau against the 4th respondent.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr.
Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, learned Senior Government Pleader
and perused pleadings and material on record.
4. In our considered opinion, the subject issue raised by the
appellant is in relation to the service benefits of the 4th respondent. We
also take note of the fact that as per Exhibit P1 judgment, a learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C). No.11820 of 2020, appropriate
directions are issued for consideration of the claim raised by the 4 th
respondent by the Executive Committee of Kerala State Council for
Child Welfare. We have no reason to think that the Executive
Committee would not look into all the attendant matters, law and
circumstances while considering the request to release the service
benefits.
5. However, we have no doubt in our mind to hold that appellant
has no manner of right to interfere or meddle with the rights and claims
raised by the 4th respondent before the competent authority in respect of
the services rendered by him. Therefore, it is for the said authority to
consider the said issue, and the appellant is never an aggrieved person
to get any opportunity in the process directed by this Court in Exhibit P1
judgment, and that too in a service matter, which is a very well settled
W.A.262/2021
position in law.
Needless to say we do not find any jurisdictional error or
other legal infirmities in the judgment justifying our interference invoking
the powers conferred under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act,
1958. Resultantly, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. Manikumar,
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P. Chaly,
Judge
sou.
