Kerala High Court
Mohammed Shihabudeen.K vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep on 24 May, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
WA NO. 193 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED I14.11.2023 IN WP(C) NO.34471 OF
2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED SHIHABUDEEN.K
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O CHERIYA KOYA, CHEMANCHERY LAVANAKKAL HOUSE,
ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,
PIN - 682551
BY ADVS.
T.N.SREEKALA
P.P.BIJU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER
LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,
REGISTERED OFFICE, BOTANICAL GARDENS, KAVARTTI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR V., SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION
Sajith Kumar V.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 193 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Petitioner had approached the Single Bench with
the following prayers:
i. Call for the records pursuant to Exhibit -P6 order and
quash the same invoking the writ of certiorari.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order
or direction directing the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to
reconsider Exhibit-P3 and Exhibit-P4 and regularise
the service of the petitioner without much delay.
Iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order
or direction directing the respondents to accommodate
the petitioner provisionally till the regularisation of the
service of the petitioner.
iv. Be further pleased to issue such other writ or order or
direction as deem just and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
2. The aforementioned prayers were based on the fact
that he was appointed for multi-duties as contract employee on
consolidated wages and emoluments. The department had come
out with a scheme to absorb all the employees working on
contractual basis for more than twelve(12) years. In this regard
WA NO. 193 OF 2024
had made a request on the premise that similarly situated
person had also been absorbed. The stand of the respondent
before the Single Bench was that the petitioner had not come to
the Court with clean hands, already his services were
retrenched and taken the entire compensation much less writ
petition challenged against the retrenchment order was also
dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was ill-advised to accept the
entire compensation as full and final settlement. In fact, all the
other persons have been absorbed and therefore he should have
been atleast considered by issuing some orders in the nature of
mandamus.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent submitted that there was no
relationship of employer and employee and therefore the
grievance could not have been agitated.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and appraised the paper book.
WA NO. 193 OF 2024
6. Paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Single Bench
reads as under:
I find that the petitioner was retrenched from service
in compliance with the provisions of the ID Act and the
benefits due to him were disbursed on 7.9.2022. This writ
petition was filed on 27.10.2022. The fact that the petitioner
has received the amount of Rs.1,59,057/- towards full and
final settlement of eligible compensation has not been stated
in the writ petition. At any rate, the unit has been closed
down, and retrenchment compensation has been granted to
the employees. In that view of the matter, the prayer sought
for by the petitioner for regularisation cannot be granted.
This writ petition is dismissed."
7. The aforementioned findings have not been denied.
In this view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioner for
absorption and regularisation of service could not have been
accepted, rightly so the petition has been dismissed. We do not
find any illegality or perversity in the judgment impugned.
Appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S., JUDGE
nak
WA NO. 193 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. F.N.
1/20003 SJTEP (LDCL), DATED 17.04.2008,
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF LDCL
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF AN OFFICE ORDER F NO.
1/1/2010-CTOD, DATED 08.09.2010, ISSUED
BY LDCL
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED RECRUITMENT
RULE TO THE POST OF MULTI SKILLED
EMPLOYEE (MSE)
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER F NO.
LDCL/ADMN/2017, DATED 06.02.2019,
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
08.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT
Annexure F TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.03.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure G TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure H TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
28.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure J A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING
FILE NO. 250101 (107)/10/2021-LDCL
KOCHI-UT-LKS, DATED 20.10.2021, ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
WA NO. 193 OF 2024
Annexure K TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 27.12.2021
Annexure L A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REQUEST OF THE
APPELLANT DATED 15.06.2022
Annexure M TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F NO. LDCL/RTI-
2022, DATED 26.07.2022,
Annexure N TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F NO. LDCL/RTI-
2022, DATED 30.08.2022
Annexure O TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED
30-03-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT'S
WIFE
