Selvaraj J.R vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4798 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4798 Ker
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2022

Kerala High Court

Selvaraj J.R vs State Of Kerala 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. 1912 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              SELVARAJ J.R.
              AGED 42 YEARS
              RESIDING AT J.N.VILASAM, PAZHAVOORKONAM, PERUMKADAVILA
              (P.O.), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 124.
              BY ADV S.SOUMYA ISSAC


RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
     2        MANAGING DIRECTOR
              KERALA ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KELTRON
              HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.
     3        CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
              KELTROON EQUIPMENT COMPLEX, KARAKULAM P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 564.
              BY ADVS.
              SRI. PREMCHAND R. NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
              SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, SC, KELTRON




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2012,
THE COURT ON 29.04.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) 1912 OF 2021
                                        2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022

The petitioner was appointed as Operator on

contract basis in the Kerala Electronics Development

Corporation Ltd. (KELTRON) on 15.01.2007. His

contract of appointment was renewed from time to

time. As their contractual employment was continuing

for more than 10 years, the petitioner and similarly

placed contract employees sought regularisation.

Their representations having failed to evoke any

positive response, the contractual employees

conducted a protest in front of the first respondent's

office on 19.05.2018. During the course of the

protest, the petitioner gave a public speech, which

respondents 2 and 3 found to be derogatory.

Therefore, the petitioner was suspended from service

as per Ext.P7 Office Memorandum dated 19.04.2018.

Later, by Ext.P9 dated 17.05.2018, the petitioner's

with immediate effect. Much later, by Ext.P12

Government Order dated 03.01.2021, the service of

296 contractual staff in the KELTRON and its

subsidiary companies was regularised. The petitioner

alleges that he was singled out for termination from

among the contractual staff and discriminated against

in the matter of regularisation. The writ petition is

filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

reinstate the petitioner in service and to include his

name in Ext.P12 order.

2. Heard Advs. Soumya Issac for the petitioner,

M.A Zohra for the KELTRON and Senior Government

Pleader, Premchand R Nair for the State.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that Ext.P9 order of termination was issued without

conducting any enquiry or affording an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner. It is argued that the

punishment of termination of petitioner's contract is

grossly disproportionate to the alleged act of

The further contention is that, having regularised the

service of all other contractual employees, the same

benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner

also. The refusal to consider the petitioner for

regularisation amounts to an arbitrary exercise of

power and is therefore, liable to be interfered with.

4. In reply, learned Standing Counsel for

KELTRON submitted that, being an employee on fixed

term contract, the petitioner has no legal right to

demand regularisation. Reference is made to Clause

2 (f) and 2.6 of the Standing Orders extracted in the

counter affidavit, to submit that, workman engaged

for work which is of a temporary nature and likely to

be ended within a limited period, is bound to vacate

the post at the end of the period for which he is

appointed, and if the appointment till such time as

an event may occur, the workman shall vacate the

post on the happening of such event. It is submitted

that the petitioner had instigated the other

demanding regularisation. The actions of the

petitioner had affected the peaceful functioning of the

unit and created enmity against the Company in the

minds of the employees. The appointment being on

fixed term basis and the Company having lost

confidence in the petitioner, his contract was

terminated, for which no disciplinary enquiry is

necessary. Learned Counsel submitted that, upon

termination of petitioner's contract, he had raised a

complaint before the first respondent. The complaint

was forwarded to the second respondent for

appropriate action and accordingly, the issue was

considered and Annexure-R2(a) reply submitted to

the first respondent on 10.08.2018. The other

contractual employees were regularised much after

the termination of petitioner's contract and hence,

Ext.P12 does not give rise to any cause of action, as

far as the petitioner is concerned.

5. Learned Government Pleader contended that

Ext.P12, the Government's decision to regularise the

existing employees.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in

the KELTRON on a fixed term contract. After the

decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and

others [2006 (4) SCC 1], the law is well settled

that continuance of service of a contractual employee

will not confer him with a legal right to seek

regularisaiton. Being a contractual employee, the

petitioner was bound by the terms of the contract and

his attempt to create unrest among the employees

was sufficient reason for the management to

terminate the contract. As rightly contended by the

learned Standing Counsel, no departmental enquiry is

necessary for terminating a fixed term contract of

employment. The petitioner's challenge against

Ext.P9 order of termination having been concluded by

Annexure-R2(a), he cannot seek regularisation along

with the employees who were in the service of the

learned Government Pleader is right in pointing out

that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge

Ext.P12, since his contract of employment stood

terminated with effect from 17.05.2018.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED ON 11/08/2017.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT DATED 05/02/2016.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED ON 04/03/2014 (CM OFFICE).

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DT. 06/05/2014.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE LABOUR COMMISSIONER DT. 13/04/2018.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 19/04/2018.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER BY THE PETITIONER DT. 24/04/2018.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DT.

17/05/2018.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY OFFICE OF THE OPPOSITION LEADER DT. 10/6/18.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE OFFICE OF THE OPPOSITE LEADER DT. 23/5/18. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED ON 03/01/2021.

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 06/8/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/8/2018 GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE