Kerala High Court
V.C.Mani vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1435 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
V.C.MANI
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O CHANDI, VELUPRA HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY P.O. POOMATTOM,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI. C.S.MANILAL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONAL AND TRAINING, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL
SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3 THE RUBBER BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
BY ADVS.
SRI. S. MANU, ASGI
SRI. B.PRAMOD, CGC
SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS - R3
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA
JOSE ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2022, THE
COURT ON 29.04.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)1435 of 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022
The petitioner was engaged as Casual Labour in
the Rubber Plantation of the Rubber Research
Institute of the third respondent from 03.08.1983
onwards and was made a permanent worker on
01.11.1995. While the petitioner was continuing as
permanent worker, third respondent conducted an
open recruitment for the Group-D post of
Peon/Watcher. The causal/permanent workers of the
third respondent were also allowed to participate in
the selection, along with open market candidates. In
the selection thus conducted in the year 1999, the
petitioner was ranked No.5. Petitioner is aggrieved
by the refusal to appoint him, in spite of his higher
rank. Later, by Ext.P4 Scheme, the third respondent
extended the benefit of conferment of temporary
status to casual labourers. The petitioner alleges
that, in spite of his eligibility, he was not given the
W.P.(C)1435 of 2021
benefit of Ext.P4, while his juniors were granted
temporary status and later regularised. Voicing his
grievances the petitioner had approached the third
respondent and his representation having failed to
evoke any response, the petitioner moved writ
petition before this Court, resulting in Ext.P7
judgment directing the third respondent Board to
consider the petitioner's claim. In compliance of the
direction, the third respondent considered the claim
and rejected the same under Ext.P8 order.
Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking to quash
Ext.P8 and to direct the third respondent to grant all
benefits due to the petitioner under Ext.P4 Scheme,
with consequential appointments as was given to his
juniors.
2. Heard Advs. C.S.Manilal for the petitioner and
Abraham Joseph Markos for the third respondent.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner was originally
engaged as casual labour and thereafter appointed as
permanent worker in the plantations of the Rubber
W.P.(C)1435 of 2021
Research Institute of India of the third respondent.
The contention of the third respondent that workers
of plantations are governed by the Plantation Labour
Act, 1951 and the Standing Orders is not disputed. A
perusal of Ext.P4 shows that the Scheme envisages
grant of temporary status to casual labourers in
employment on the date of issue of the Office
Memorandum (10.09.1993) and who have rendered
continuous service of at least one year (240 days).
The Scheme is seen made applicable to causal
labourers in employment of the Ministries/
Departments of Government of India and their
attached/subordinate offices. Being so, I find
substantial merit in the contention of the third
respondent that the petitioner being a manual labour
governed by the Plantation Labour Act and Standing
Orders, is not entitled for the benefit of Ext.P4
Scheme, meant for conferment of temporary status to
casual labourers in the employment of
Ministries/Departments and attached/subordinate
W.P.(C)1435 of 2021
offices. The allegation that identically placed juniors
was extended the benefit of Ext.P4 Scheme is
controverted by pointing out that the said workmen
had been engaged in the maintenance section of the
Rubber Research Institute of India and not as manual
labour in its plantations.
4. In answer to the petitioner's allegation that,
he was denied appointment in spite of being placed at
Rank No.5 in the open recruitment, the third
respondent has stated as under;
"It is respectfully submitted that during 1999, the Board
had invited applications for direct recruitment to fill up
two vacancies to the post of Peon/Watcher in Kerala in
the scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200. 139
candidates from the employment exchange and 58
casual/permanent workers engaged in RRII
farms/nurseries of the Board, who fulfilled the eligibility
criteria as pr the recruitment rule (RR), had responded
to the said advertisement. After preliminary screening,
61 candidates were called for interview from among the
entire applicants and a select list (Rank list) was
published on 09.07.1999 in which the Petitioner was
ranked 5th. Appointment order was given on 26.07.1999
to the first two candidates from the rank list. Later, on
06.04.2000, the 3rd candidate from the said rank list was
W.P.(C)1435 of 2021
given appointment against the vacancy which arose
during 2000. Consequent to the expiry of the validity of
said rank list and further to the ban on recruitment by
the Government of India, no further appointment has
been made from the said list to the post of
peon/watcher."
5. The respondent having answered all the
allegations raised in the writ petition and moreover,
the allegations pertaining to the period 1999-2000
having been raised for the first time in the year 2010,
the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot
be invoked. Further, the petitioner has retired from
service on 31.03.2020 and is stated to have received
his retirement benefits.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
NB
W.P.(C)1435 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1435/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.12.1996
ISSUED FROM THE RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF
INDIA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.9.2010
FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN BY CENTRAL
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 4.11.2010
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
TRAINING, CAUSAL LABOURERS (GRANT OF TEMPORARY
STATUS AND REGULARIZATION) SCHEME (RELEVANT
PAGES)
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OFFICE
MEMORANDUM NO 12/5/91-DIR(C) DATED 29.1.1992
(RELEVANT PAGES)
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF 21.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF RUBBER BOARD
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29734/15 DATED
26.7.2019
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO SECY/4/2019 DATED
14.10.2019 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS LEDGER CARD DATED
18.9.2017
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.06.2006
ISSUED TO A.M. SABU
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
