Satyapalan S vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7906 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944

                            WP(C) NO. 18278 OF 2022



PETITIONER:

              SATYAPALAN S,
              AGED 56 YEARS
              S/O. SADANANDAN K.K., AGED 56 YEARS, KOCHURAMVELIYIL, KAIPPURAM,
              MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 525

              BY ADVS.
              R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
              R.RANJANIE



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY AND
              COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695
              001

     2        KAYAR VIKASANA DIRECTOR (REGISTRAR),
              DIRECTORATE OF KAYAR DEVELOPMENT, KAYAR BHAVAN, NANDAVANAM,
              PALAYAM, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM-695 033.

     3        COIR FED,
              THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
              NO.679, PB NO.4616, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 012, REPRESENTED
              BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

     4        THE GENERAL MANAGER,
              COIR FED REGIONAL OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE COIR
              MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO.679, PB NO.4616, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
              PIN- 688 012




              SMT. PARVATHY .K-GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2



W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022.

The petitioner assails Ext.P7 order of the 3 rd

respondent - Managing Director of the COIRFED, to the

extent to which he has been granted regularization of

service only with effect from 02.08.2017. The specific

complaint of the petitioner is that even though this Court

had, in Ext.P6 judgment delivered in an earlier round of

litigation, directed consideration of his case on the basis

of the orders issued in the case of identically situated

persons, Ext.P7 has been now issued limiting the

regularization only with effect from 02.08.2017, but

without assigning any reason for it. The petitioner

W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.

contends that, therefore, Ext.P7 to such extent, is illegal

and unlawful.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the COIRFED,

Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, on the other hand, controverted the

afore submissions of Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel

for the petitioner, saying that in Ext.P6, this Court has

not reflected upon the manner in which the COIRFED was

to take a decision on the request of the petitioner. He

submitted that, therefore, when an order of

regularization is made, it can only be done prospectively

and cannot be from an anterior date, as is now being

sought for by the petitioner. He concluded his

submissions saying that as long as this Court did not, in

Ext.P6, direct consideration of the petitioner's claim to

grant him regularization from an earlier date, such a plea

W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.

in this writ petition is untenable.

In reply, Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel for the

petitioner, affirmed that Ext.P6 did not specify the

manner in which the COIRFED was to take a decision; the

directions are very clear that Exts.P4 and P5 orders

produced therein - which related to the regularization of

certain similarly situated persons - were also to be taken

into account, while orders with respect to her client was

issued. She submitted that, therefore, Ext.P7, to the

extent to which it has not even adverted to Exts.P4 and

P5 orders mentioned in Ext.P6 judgment, therefore,

certainly, therefore, cannot be granted approval by this

Court.

I must say that I find force in the afore submissions

of Smt.R.Ranjanie because, though this Court did not

W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.

direct the COIRFED to act in a particular manner, it was

certainly ordered to consider Exts.P4 and P5 orders

mentioned in Ext.P6 judgment, which related to the

regularization of certain similarly situated employees and

in whose case, the petitioner asserts, they were given

regularization from an earlier date. If this be so,

certainly, the matter will require to be reconsidered from

that limited perspective; and I am firm that petitioner

entitled to such relief in this writ petition.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited

extent of directing the competent Authority of the 3 rd

respondent to reconsider the date of regularization of the

petitioner, adverting to Exts.P4 and P5 documents

mentioned in Ext.P6 judgment and in terms of the

directions therein, after affording an opportunity of being

W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.

heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an

appropriate order and necessary action thereon as

expeditiously as is possible.

I make it clear that I have dealt with Ext.P7 only to

the afore extent and that, in all other respects, it will

remain unaltered.

Needless to say, if, through the afore exercise,

regularization from an earlier date is found eligible to the

petitioner, then all resultant and corollary benefits shall

also be made available to him without any avoidable

delay.

At this time, Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel for

the petitioner, intervened to say that even the benefits

based on Ext.P7 have not been yet made available to her

client. If this be so and since Ext.P7 is otherwise without

W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.

contest, I order the competent Authority of the 3 rd

respondent - COIRFED, to make available to such

benefits, notwithstanding the afore directions, within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Raj/29.06.2022.

W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18278/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY COIR FED Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 25.4.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 17.02.2006, REGULARIZING SRI. E. SAJU IN THE RCP UNIT OF THIRD RESPONDENT, WITH EFFECT FROM 7.2.2006.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.138 DATED 2.8.2017, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.9.2017, OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.

19 IN W.P.(C) NO. 18645/2019 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2020 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.3.2022

W.P.(C)No. 18278 of 2022.

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.4.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT