A.Ramakrishnan vs Kerala State Electricity Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 14770 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

          THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943

                             WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2014

PETITIONER:

               A.RAMAKRISHNAN
               RETIRED DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATEELECTRICITY BOARD,
               RESIDING AT PARACKAL HOUSE,MUDAPPALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678
               705.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.R.ANISON
               SMT.V.BHARGAVI PANANGAD
               SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
               SMT.T.B.REMANI
               SMT.P.A.RINUSA



RESPONDENTS:

               KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
               REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,VYDHUTHI
               BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC
               SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2014

                                     2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to have been retired from the

services of the 'Kerala State Electricity Board' (KSEB) as a Deputy

Chief Engineer and he impugns Ext.P9 order issued by its

Chairman and Managing Director, withholding his pension on the

allegation that he had entered service on furnishing a wrong

Community/Caste Certificate as being a 'Thandan' (which belongs

to SC/ST category); while he is, in fact, an 'Ezhava'.

2. The petitioner says that these assertions in Ext.P9 are

completely baseless and that this is unequivocally clear from the

findings of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment delivered in a writ

petition which he had filed earlier, when action was proposed to be

taken against him by the Governmental Agencies for having

furnished Caste Certificates in favour of his sons for education,

showing them as being members of the SC/ST community.

3. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P6 judgment, the

Government Order dated 23.05.90 - which has been produced as

Ext.P15 therein and it had been declared that his caste status was

wrong - had been set aside; however, leaving liberty to the

KIRTADS and the Tahsildar, Chittoor, to continue with their WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2014

enquiry and conclude appositely as to this issue.

4. The petitioner says that even before the KIRTADS or

the Tahsildar had taken any decision on his caste status, the KSEB

has now issued Ext.P9, withholding the pension as if they have

concluded against him affirmatively that his declaration regarding

the caste status was wrong. The petitioner, therefore, prays that

Ext.P9 be set aside.

5. I have heard Sri.M.R.Anison, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Smt.A.G.Anitha, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the KSEB.

6. Smt.A.G.Aneetha submitted that Ext.P9 has been issued

invoking the power of the KSEB under Section 16A of Kerala

SC/ST Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996,

and that they were legally authorized to withhold the pension of

the petitioner, because there was a justified suspicion that his

declaration of caste status was deliberately made incorrectly. She,

therefore, prayed that Ext.P9 may not be interdicted.

7. The afore submissions made on behalf of the KSEB may

appear lustrous at first blush and it looses its sheen

immediately thereafter, because; for one, said order has been WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2014

issued as early as in the year 2013; and for the second, nothing

has been placed on record to show whether either the KIRTADS

or the Tahsildar has concluded any action against the petitioner

with respect to his caste status.

8. In fact, the KSEB admits in Ext.P9, as also in their

counter pleadings in this case, that neither the KIRTADS or the

Tahsildar has given them any orders/proceedings with respect to

Anthropological study or the caste status of the petitioner, but that

the Tahsildar had informed them through a proceeding that the

petitioner's caste status of 'Thandan' was wrong.

9. However, what is pertinent in this case is that the

alleged letter of the Tahsildar has not been placed on record by

the KSEB; and more importantly, in Ext.P6, this Court had given

liberty to the KIRTADS and the Tahsildar, to complete the enquiry

against the petitioner and conclude one way or the other, through

an appropriate proceedings. There is nothing on record to show

that any such proceedings having been concluded, either by the

KIRTADS or by the Tahsildar and therefore, I fail to understand

how the latter could have written a letter - even if he had done so -

to the KSEB with respect to the caste status of the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2014

10. That said, I notice that the KIRTADS or the Tahsildar is

not a party in this case. This may be justified for the petitioner

because he is only challenging Ext.P9 order. However, if I am to

conclude affirmatively on Ext.P9, then certainly, this Court must

have information as to whether the KIRTADS or the Tahsildar has

completed proceedings against the petitioner as regards his caste

status, in terms of the liberty reserved in their favour through

Ext.P6 judgment. In the absence of any such information being

available, this Court is not in a position to deal with the allegations

of the rival parties in this case finally.

11. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the matter must be

reconsidered by the KSEB because, even going by the Section

above referred by Smt.A.G.Aneetha, they would be authorized to

withhold the pension only if the proceedings against the petitioner

have now attained conclusion one way or the other - either in the

hands of the KIRTADS or the Tahsildar, as per the directions in

Ext.P6 judgment.

Resultantly, Ext.P9 is set aside; with a consequential

direction to the KSEB to immediately reconsider the entire matter

and decide upon payment of pension to the petitioner, with a strict WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2014

caveat that they will be entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act

only if they are now in possession of any valid proceedings from

either KIRTADS or Tahsildar or from any other competent

Authority, as regards the caste status of the petitioner, in terms of

Ext.P6 judgment of this Court or as per the provisions of the

statutory mandate.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the KSEB after

affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - either

physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not

later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 7825 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7825/2014

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF S.S.L.C BOOK OF THE PETITIONER

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 22.6.1962 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR

EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 1.7.1967 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR.

EXT.P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 31.7.1973 ISSUED BY THE THASILDAR, CHITTOOR

EXT.P-5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 9.1.1990 IN OP NO.6589/1989 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P-6: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 21.12.2001 IN OP NO.6085/1990

EXT.P-7: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.8.2003 ISSUED BY THE VIGILANCE CELL OF KIRTADS

EXT.P-8: A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.8.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VIGILANCE CELL OF KIRTADS

EXT.P-9: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VIG/BIV/1323/94/14 DATED 26.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.