Kerala High Court
K.J.Marykutty vs The Union Of India on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
Friday, the 29th day of October 2021 / 7th Karthika, 1943
WA NO. 1542 OF 2020
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2020 IN WP(C) 32186/2015 OF THIS COURT.
--
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.J.MARYKUTTY,AGED 64 YEARS,W/O. JOY SEBASTIAN,
RESIDING AT VAZHEKATTU ROSE VILLA, NETTOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 040.
BY ADVS.M/S.A.JAYASANKAR,MANU GOVIND & ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1.THE UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.
2.THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3.THE COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
WELLINGTON ISLAND, NORTH END P.O., COCHIN-682 009.
4.THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE,
WELLINGTON ISLAND, NORTH END P.O., COCHIN-682 009.
ADV.S.VAIDYANATHAN,CGC FOR R1 AND R2
BY ADVS.M/S.ISSAC THOMAS, ABRAHAM MARKOS,ABRAHAM JOSEPH
MARKOS,CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM P.G,ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS,SHARAD JOSEPH
KODIANTHARA FOR R3 & R4.
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders on 29/10/2021 upon perusing
the appeal memorandum, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
EXT.P1:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER VIDE
NO.P/S/18/2015/S
DT.25/5/2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12:A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.P/S/18/2015/S
DT.15/07/2015 REVOKING SUSPENSION.
---
ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
.................................................................
W.A. No.1542 of 2020
[Arising out of judgment dated 27.01.2020
in W.P.(C) No.32186 of 2015 of this Court]
.................................................................
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021
ORDER
Sri.Issac Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Cochin Port Trust appearing for the respondents seeks short time to get
further instructions from respondents 3 & 4. In that regard, respondents
3 & 4 will furnish specific and precise instructions to the learned
Standing Counsel as to whether any statutory rules or regulations have
been framed either by the Board of the respondent - Port Trust in terms
of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Major Port Trusts Act,
1963 or by the Government of India in terms of Section 126 of the said
Act. If such statutory provisions are absent, then it may be apprised to
this Court as to whether the Central Government has used their power
under Section 111 to issue guidelines to the Port Trust to follow the norms
in Fundamental Rules (FR), which is applicable for Union Government
employees in the matter of regularization of suspension period, after
finalization of the disciplinary proceedings and even in the absence of
that, as to whether the Board of Port Trust has taken any resolution in
exercise of their executive competence, which is concomitant with their
statutory competence in terms of Section 28 of the Act, either to frame
guidelines or to take an executive decision to adopt the provisions of the
Fundamental Rules (FR), to regulate the period of suspension after
finalization of the disciplinary proceedings, etc. The relevant documents
in that regard may be made available for the perusal of this Court and the
same if relied, may be filed along with a memo of the Standing Counsel
for respondents 3 & 4 or through a statement of the competent officer of
respondents 3 & 4.
2. Further, the respondents 3 & 4 will also furnish specific
instructions on the plea put forward by the appellant to the effect that she
had missed one increment which is otherwise due during the period of
suspension from 25.05.2015 (date of issuance of Ext.P1 order of
suspension) upto 15.07.2015 (date of reinstatement as per Ext.P12 order)
and that the said missed increment has not even been notionally counted
for fixing her last pay for computation of her retirement benefits like
pension, gratuity, etc. So also respondents 3 and 4 will furnish
instructions as to whether the executive orders as in O.M. No.43/56/64-
AVD dated 22.10.1964 referred to in para 3 of the Administrative
Instructions appended to Fundamental Rules (FR) furnished in Swamy's
compilation is applicable to R3 & R4 establishment and if so, whether
such OM has been subsequently altered and amended in the manner
known to law by the Government of India or whether the said OM dated
22.10.1964 is still in force.
3. Since the case has been adjourned on occasions more than
one, respondents 3 & 4 will take care to ensure that sufficient and precise
instructions are furnished to the learned Standing Counsel, well, before
the next posting date.
List the case on 10.11.2021
Handover to both sides.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
29-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
