Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Sreekumar P.A on 9 November, 2021
RP.108/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
RP NO. 108 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 25/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ERNAKULAM-682001.
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KANNUR-670001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SREEKUMAR P.A.
S/O.AJITH KUMAR P.B., CLERK, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, KOCHI RANGE, ERNAKULAM-682031,
RESIDING AT PATHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNJITHAI P.O.,
N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM-683522.
2 NISHA RANI N.V.,
W/O.B.S.UNNIKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT AMBJUJA NIVAS,
CHILAMBIL, SASTHAVATTOM (P.O.), PERUNGUZHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695305.
RP.108/2020 2
3 RENJU SARANG S.,
W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR D., RESIDING AT EF-4/302,
VRINDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM PALACE ROAD (P.O.),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
4 SINI M.CHANDRAN,
W/O.RAMESH C.B., RESIDING AT CHENTHURUTHIL HOUSE,
ASTAMICHIRA (P.O.), THRISSUR-680731.
5 SHAMIL SALEEM,
W/O.SAJEEB IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT AREEPURAM HOUSE,
MOORKANAD (P.O.), THRISSUR-680711.
6 DIVYA P.G.,
D/O.P.R.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SREENIVAS, MARAMPILLY
(P.O.), ALUVA-683105.
7 SMITHA VIJAYAN,
D/O.VIJAYAN NAIR, KRISHNAKRIPA, C.K.ROAD, MANJUMMAL,
ERNAKULAM-683501.
8 NISHA BALAKRISHNAN,
D/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, USHUS (OZHUKKANVILLAYIL),
VADAKKUMBHAGAM, CHAVARA SOUTH (P.O.), -691584.
9 SURENDRAN T.S.,
D/O.SOMAN, THANIKUNNEL HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR (P.O.),
PANAMAKOVALA-686692.
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.108/2020 3
K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P.No. 108 of 2020
in
O.P(KAT).No.25 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2021
ORDER
Arun, J.
The State of Kerala and its officials are seeking review of the
judgment in O.P(KAT) No.25 of 2019. The original petition was filed
against the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, holding that
appointees under the Compassionate Employment Scheme formulated
by the Government are entitled to only 5% of the vacancies that arise in
a year and that quota having been exceeded, the applicants cannot
claim regularisation with effect from the date of their appointment
against supernumerary posts. Challenge against that order was repelled
by the judgment sought to be reviewed. A conspectus of the relevant
facts is as follows;
The State Government formulated the Compassionate
Employment Scheme vide G.O(P).No.12/19/P&ARD dated 24.5.1999.
Thereafter, for many years, compassionate appointments could not be
affected, for want of vacancies. To make up for the shortfall,
Government created 549 supernumerary posts in various Departments.
Out of the 549 supernumerary posts, 316 posts of Lower Division Clerks
were created in the Police Department and 305 applicants were
appointed. From among those 305 supernumerary appointees, 137
were regularised to the vacancies that had arisen after their
appointment. Those persons claimed regularisation with effect from the
date of their appointment. The Government having failed to accede to
their request, they approached the KAT.
2. The original application was dismissed by the Tribunal, holding
that only 5% of the vacancies of each year could be set apart for
compassionate appointment and appointees can be regularised only
when regular vacancies arise. The finding of the Tribunal was upheld by
this Court.
3. The review petition is filed alleging that the Tribunal, as well as
this Court, committed a grave error by placing reliance on Paragraph 34
of the Scheme for arriving at the conclusion that compassionate
appointments could be affected only to 5% of the vacancies arising
each year. According to the petitioners, Paragraphs 35 to 38 of the
Scheme leave no room for doubt that the 5% vacancies mentioned in
Paragraph 34 is over and above the direct appointments to be affected
in accordance with Paragraphs 35 to 38. It is contended that the
Compassionate Employment Scheme being a social security measure,
should not have been interpreted in such restricted manner.
4. Having heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and
having analysed the provisions of the Compassionate Employment
Scheme again, we find no reason to entertain the review. The question
considered by the Tribunal and this Court is regarding the right of
compassionate appointees for regularisation in supernumerary posts
with effect from their date of appointment. As per Paragraphs 35 to 38,
the administrative departments can affect compassionate appointments
without consulting the General Administration(C.E.) Department and
such appointments shall not be set off against the vacancies reserved
and reported to the General Administration(C.E.) Department. The
appointments under consideration were affected to supernumerary
posts. As such, the question whether, appointments affected under
Paragraphs 35 to 38 can be set off against the 5% vacancies earmarked
under Paragraph 34 was not germane and cannot be urged as a ground
for review.
In the result, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
APPENDIX OF RP 108/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(P)NO.12/99/P&ARD
DATED 24.05.1999.
