Kerala High Court
Kshemachandran.C vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2359 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
KSHEMACHANDRAN.C
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.LATE CHELLAPPAN, WORKER, KERALA KERAKARSHAKASAHAKARANA
FEDERATION LTD, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KOLLAM 690
542
RESIDING AT MAZHAPAYYATH PADINJARETHARA HOUSE, ADINADU SOUTH,
KATTILKADAVU P.O., KOLLAM 690 542
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 KERALA KERAKARSHAKASAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA TOWER, WATER WORKS
COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
3 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA KERAKARSHAKASAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD., KERALA TOWER,
WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
BY ADV SRI.MANU GOVIND, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2359 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to have been working in the services of
the Kerala Kerakarshaka Sahakarana Federation Ltd. ('KERAFED' for
short), for more than two decades and alleges that he has been
regularized in service through Ext.P8 only from the date of the said
order and not from the date of his initial engagement. He asserts that
this is illegal and unlawful and therefore, seeks that Ext.P8, to that
extent, be quashed.
2. The afore plea and submissions of the petitioner, as made
by his learned counsel - Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, were, however,
controverted by Sri.Manu Govind - learned Standing Counsel for the
'KERAFED' pointing out that Ext.P8 is only an order issued by his
client in conformity with earlier Government Orders, which mandated
that petitioner and 24 others be granted regularization only
prospectively and not retrospectively. He submitted that, therefore,
the 'KERAFED' was incapacitated from issuing any order, other than
Ext.P8; and argued that unless the petitioner successfully challenges
the aforementioned Government Orders - copies of which he says have
been placed on record along with Memo dated 27.06.2022 - he cannot
obtain any further relief.
3. Smt.Parvathy K - learned Government Pleader appearing
for the official respondents, submitted that since there is no challenge
WP(C) NO. 2359 OF 2021
to the orders of the Government dated 03.03.2018 and 16.03.2020, the
petitioner cannot collaterally challenge Ext.P8, which has been issued
by the 'KERAFED' in conformity with the same. She also therefore,
prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. In reply, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj - learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that his client was never offered copies of the
aforementioned Government Orders until today, when he received it
along with the Memo of the learned Standing Counsel for the
'KERAFED'. He submitted that, therefore, his client had no information
of such orders and thus, incapacitated from challenging it, as has been
now argued by the learned Government Pleader. He, therefore, prayed
that this Court set aside Ext.P8 as pleaded in this writ petition.
5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that
the 'KERAFED' is an entity controlled by the Government. Therefore,
they are bound to obey and abide by the directions given to them by it
from time to time.
6. As seen above, it is argued before me by the learned
Government Pleader that the orders of the Government dated
03.03.2018 and 16.03.2020 are directions issued to the 'KERAFED' to
regularize the services of the petitioner and 24 others and therefore,
that it cannot travel beyond it.
7. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner must certainly obtain a
WP(C) NO. 2359 OF 2021
right of proceeding against the said orders, subject to their
entitlement, which they could not do until today.
8. Taking note of the afore circumstances, I leave liberty to
the petitioner to approach the Government against their orders dated
03.03.2018 and 16.03.2020, with all documents and precedents which
he intends to rely upon in substantiation; and if this is done within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, its competent Authority will hear him and take an apposite
decision as to the claim that he is entitled to be regularized in service
retrospectively.
9. Needless to say, the petitioner's contention, edificed on
Ext.P1, that 'KERAFED' has decided earlier to regularize him and
others mentioned therein retrospectively, shall also be kept in mind by
the competent Authority, while the afore exercise is completed.
10. The resultant order shall be issued by the competent
Authority of the Government, as expeditiously as is possible but not
later than three months from the date on which the petitioner
approaches them with a representation in terms of the afore liberty.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 2359 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2359/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FEDERATION DATED
20.2.2016 REGULARISING THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONER IN THE POST OF CASUAL WORKER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 21.5.2016 TO
20.6.2016
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
20.12.2017
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF EXHIBIT P4 REPRESENTATION DATED
4.11.2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.32419/2019
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2019 IN W.P.
(C)NO.32419/2019
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KFD/ADM-3/2020/1548
DATED 18.1.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KFD/ADM3/2020/1626 DATED
24.1.2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.F.D/A.D.M.3/000445/2020
DATED 6.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2021
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
