Kerala High Court
Ranjith vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER:
RANJITH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, KARAKKATTIL HOUSE, MOKAVAOOR,
ERANHIKKAL P O, KOZHIKODE,
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERNJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673006.
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERNJIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE - 673006.
4 ADDL.R4. KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003
ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.11.2020 IN
I.A.1/2020 IN WP(C)NO.22177/2020.
R2-3 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD
R4 BY ADV. SHRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KERALA
DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition had been heard by me
on 18.12.2020 and a judgment of the same date
had been delivered. However, the Malabar
Devaswom Board filed R.P.No.82 of 2021, which
was allowed and the said judgment was
recalled.
2. The learned counsel for the parties
are ad idem that this writ petition can be
heard again by this Court and disposed of
today itself; and I, therefore, with their
consent, proceeded to hear this matter again.
3. The petitioner says that he was
appointed as a Driver in the Malabar Devaswom
Board on 15/10/2010 on daily wages and that he
has been continuing as such until now. His
grievance - as argued by his learned counsel
Shri.K.Mohanakannan - is that even though
another Driver by name Shri.Mahesh - who was
also appointed in similar circumstances by the
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
Board in the year 2011 - has been regularized,
he has been discriminated against and not
granted such benefit.
4. The petitioner says that he had,
therefore, approached the Board for being
given the benefit of regularization, but that
when it was rejected, he approached the
Government by filing a Revision on 06/12/2019,
which was directed to be disposed by a
subsequent judgment of this Court in
W.P(C)No.825 of 2020.
5. The petitioner says that, however,
without considering any of his contentions,
Ext.P6 order has now been issued by the
Government, holding that regularization of
Shri.Mahesh stands on a different factual and
legal footing and therefore, that the
petitioner cannot be granted such benefit,
particularly because after 2015, any
appointment to the Board can be made only
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
under the aegis of the Devaswom Recruitment
Board.
6. The learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri.K.Mohanakannan supplemented
the above asserting that Ext.P6 is egregiously
improper, since the Government has omitted to
notice that Shri.Mahesh was appointed by the
Malabar Devaswom Board only in the year 2011
on daily wages and that his regularization had
been permitted by the Government as a 'special
case', through order dated 21.2.2020, a copy
of which had been produced before this Court
as Annexure I in the afore mentioned R.P.No.82
of 2021. Shri.K.Mohanakannan, therefore,
prayed that Ext.P6 be set aside and his client
be directed to be considered at par with
Shri.Mahesh, for the purpose of
regularization.
7. In response, Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan -
learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
Devaswom Board, submitted that, as is evident
from the counter affidavit filed by his client
in this case, Shri.Mahesh was working on daily
wage basis in the erstwhile Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowment Department from the
year 2007 on daily wages and that when the
Board was constituted, they took a decision on
24.1.2011 to appoint him on a scale of pay
basis. He submitted that this appointment and
the decision of the Board to grant Shri.Mahesh
a scale of pay has been now approved by the
Government and thus regualrization granted to
him, through its order dated 21.2.2020
mentioned above by Shri.K.Mohanakannan.
8. The learned Standing Counsel,
therefore, submitted that the case of
Shri.Mahesh and that of the petitioner is on
diametrically different planes and therefore,
that he cannot claim regularization, merely
because the latter had been given such
benefit.
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
9. Even when I hear Shri.R.Lakshmi
Narayan on the afore lines, it is indubitable
even from the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the Board, that the petitioner was
appointed on daily wage basis in the year
2010; while Shri.Mahesh was granted such
appointment by the Board, that too on a scale
of pay basis on 24.1.2011. The justification
of the Board for this is that Shri.Mahesh had
been continuing as a daily wage employee under
the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department and therefore, that they
thought it fit, through decision No.61 dated
18.1.2011, to reappoint him in their services
on a scale of pay basis. The records further
show that the proposal of the Board to
regularize Shri.Mahesh in such manner was
considered by the Government much later and
that it was approved only through its order
dated 21.02.2020, a copy of which had been
placed on record by the Board along with
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
R.P.No.82 of 2021.
10. I, therefore, fail to understand how
the Board takes a stand that the position of
the petitioner is completely at variance with
that of the afore mentioned Shri.Mahesh,
because as I have already said above, the
former was, in fact, appointed earlier than
the latter though on daily wages; while the
case of Shri.Mahesh was thereupon followed by
the Board upto the Government, so as to obtain
him the benefit of regularization, which was
granted only on 21.2.2020, concededly after
the Devaswom Recruitment Board had come into
existence.
11. Ineluctably, the further stand of the
Board that no regularization can be granted at
this time on account of the constitution of
the Devaswom Recruitment Board cannot also,
therefore, prima facie, appeal to me because
of the fact that Shri.Mahesh was given this
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
benefit in the year 2020, nearly 5 years after
the said Recruitment Board came into
existence.
12. I am, therefore, of the firm view
that the case of the petitioner must also
engage the attention of the Government,
particularly because they have granted
regularization to Shri.Mahesh - who is
similarly situated - as a 'special case',
which is reflected in their order dated
21.2.2020.
13. In the afore circumstances, I set
aside Ext.P6 and consequentially direct the
competent Secretary of the Government to
rehear the petitioner - either physically or
through video conferencing - and take a fresh
decision on his claim, adverting to my
observations above and in particular the fact
that regularization of Shri.Mahesh was
approved by the Government only on 21.2.2020,
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
much after the Devaswom Recruitment Board had
come into existence in the year 2015.
14. The afore exercise shall be completed
by the competent Secretary of the Government
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later
than two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment; and until such time,
the status quo with respect to the position of
the petitioner will continue, which will then
depend upon the decision to be arrived at
through this exercise.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/1.2.2021
WP(C).No.22177 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD NO.66 DATED 06.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN UNDER
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 20.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
6.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.01.2020
IN WP(C) NO.825/2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY
THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT NO.G.O(RT) NO.2989/2020/RD DATED
4.10.2020.
