Kerala High Court
Biju Prakash S.P vs Shaji A on 10 October, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2024:KER:75445
1
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.29128 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 BIJU PRAKASH S.P
AGED 42 YEARS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, SYSTEMS OPERATION CIRCLE,
VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695004
2 MANJU L
AGED 51 YEARS
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, POWER
HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
3 ASHOK SHERLEKAR. S
AGED 43 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), 11KV CONTROL
ROOM, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
4 KERALA POWER BOARD OFFICERS' FEDERATION (KPBOF)
REG. NO. 1644/97, C.M. STEPHEN MEMORIAL BUILDING,
POTTAKUZHI, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BIJU PRAKASH S.P, PIN -
695004
BY ADVS.
SABU GEORGE
P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
2024:KER:75445
2
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHAJI A
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE),
TRANSMISSION (SOUTH), VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ‘NICE', MMRAK4,
CHAVADIMUKKU, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695017
2 PAUL P.R
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. PALAYYAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE), TRANGRID TC
SUB DIVISION, POWER HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PAUL
NIVAS, ANCHALIKKANAM, AYIRA P.O., PARASSALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695502
3 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
4 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VIDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
5 CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
P.M.PAREETH
NAJEEB P.S(K/328/2020)
NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.(K/003588/2022)
BY S.C. SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH.
2024:KER:75445
3
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:75445
4
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed by respondents 4
to 7 in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed
inter alia for a direction to the 2nd respondent to
consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation
submitted by the 2nd petitioner after hearing the
2nd and 3rd petitioners and respondents 3,4 & 5
within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. When the writ petition came up for
admission on 16.08.2024, the same was disposed of
with the following directions.
"In the facts and circumstances of the case and
having regard to the submissions made across
the Bar, the writ petition is disposed of directing
the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of
Ext.P7 representation in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
2024:KER:75445
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
a copy of the Judgment after hearing the
petitioners as well as the respondents 4 to 6. It
is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion as regards the merits of Ext.P7."
3. This Review Petition is filed
contending that the Chief Personnel Officer has
already granted protection from transfer to the
Review Petitioners 1 to 3 and that there is no
provision for an appeal against the order passed by
the Chief Personnel Officer granting protection to the
office bearers of Trade unions.
4. During the pendency of this Review
Petition, the Chief Engineer (HRM) passed Annexure
A order disposing Ext.P7 representation in the light
of the direction issued by this Court in the impugned
Judgment. In Annexure A order, the Chief Engineer
(HRM) has stated that the authority competent to
consider and dispose of Ext.P7 is the Chief Personnel
Officer, KSEB. However, the Chief Engineer (HRM)
2024:KER:75445
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
has made certain observation on Ext.P7 on merits as
well.
5. It is now not disputed by either side
that the authority competent to consider Ext.P7 is
the Chief Personnel Officer, KSEB. That being so,
Annexure A order passed by the Chief Engineer
(HRM) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is
set aside being one passed without jurisdiction.
Since the Chief Personnel Officer, KSEB is
the authority competent to consider Ext.P7, there
will be a direction to the Chief Personnel Officer, the
3rd respondent in the Writ Petition to consider
Ext.P7 in accordance with law, after hearing the
Review Petitioners, the writ petitioners and any
other affected parties as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Judgment
is reviewed to the above extent. All the contentions
2024:KER:75445
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
of the parties are left open.
The Review Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
al/-.
2024:KER:75445
RP NO. 931 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
EB7/WP(C)/29128/KPBOF/2024 DATED
04.09.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) A true photocopy of the delegation of
powers issued by the Board as per BO (DB)
No. 449/2022 (PLNG-AEE2/2022/31) dated 26-
05-2022
Annexure R1(b) A true photocopy of the representation
dated 27-06-2024 submitted by the second
petitioner before CPO
Annexure R1(c) A true photocopy of the Letter No. PS 1
(A)/317/KPBOF-Conflict/2022/394 dated 27-
04-2022 issued by the CPO to the District
Registrar and referred to as (1) in
Exhibit P5 (received by the District
Registrar on 30-04-2022)
Annexure R1(d) A true photocopy of the Letter No. PSI
(A)/Protection (Workmen)/2019) dated 03-
05-2019 issued by the fifth respondent CPO
to the UDEEF
