Kerala High Court
Simon T.O vs Kerala Forest Research Institute on 22 October, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2024 : 1 :
2024:KER:78488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SIMON T.O, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. OUSEPH T.C, HELPER, KFRI, PEECHI,
THRISSUR 680 653,
RESIDING AT THARAKAN HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
2 SURESH M.K, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KOCHUMON M.M., HELPER, KFRI PEECHI,
THRISSUR 680 653
RESIDING AT MANGALAN HOUSE, KFRI QUARTERS
1/14, PEECHI THRISSUR, PIN - 680653
3 K.A. THANKACHAN, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, HELPER, KFRI PEECHI,
THRISSUR 680 653
RESIDING AT KALLAMPILLY HOUSE, PLAMUDI P.O,
KOTTAPADI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686692
4 C.P. UMMER, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN, HELPER, KFRI PEECHI,
THRISSUR 680 653
RESIDING AT CHOLAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
RAMANKUTH P.O, NILAMBUR, PIN - 670330
5 N. RAJAN, AGED 56 YEARS
WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2024 : 2 :
2024:KER:78488
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, HELPER, KFRI PEECHI,
THRISSUR
RESIDING AT NECHIVETTIL HOUSE, KAPPIL P.O,
VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 680653
6 P.S. KADEEJA, AGED 55 YEARS
D/O. SAITHALY, HELPER, KFRI PEECHI,
THRISSUR 680 653
RESIDING AT POONERI HOUSE, VELYPADAM P.O,
VETTINGAPADAM, PIN - 680303
7 M.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. SIVARAMAN, HELPER, KFRI PEECHI,
THRISSUR 680 653
RESIDING AT MADAMPATH HOUSE, PEECHI P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680653
8 C.B. SAJY, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. C.G. BALAN, HELPER, KFRI PEECHI,
THRISSUR 680 653
RESIDING AT CHILLAYIMADATHIL HOUSE,
KARADEYALLA, KANNARA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN -
680652
BY ADVS.
THAMPAN THOMAS
B.V.JOY SANKAR
NINCY MATHEW
HENA BAHULEYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
PEECHI.P.0., THRISSUR KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 680653
2 KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT (KSCSTE),
WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2024 : 3 :
2024:KER:78488
SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT - 695004
3 MEMBER SECRETARY
KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT (KSCSTE), SASTHRA BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT ,
SECRETARIATE , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
R4 BY ADV.SR.GP SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
R1 BY ADV.SRI.C.K.PRASAD,SC
R2&3 BY ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18214 OF 2024 : 4 :
2024:KER:78488
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are working as Helpers in
the Kerala Forest Research Institute - the 1st
respondent. The petitioners have filed this writ
petition for the following reliefs:-
"i) to issue a writ of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order or
direction calling for the records in
this case and quash Exhibit P4 issued
by the 3rd respondent;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or
direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to
initiate further actions pursuant to
Ext.P-3 and to grant revision of pay
2024:KER:78488
and all benefits annexed to it, to the
petitioners
iii) to declare that the petitioners
are regularized to the sanction post
and further approval of the
government is not required."
2. It is contended that the 2nd respondent
vide Ext.P4 communication addressed to the 1 st
respondent, has directed the 1st respondent to
defer implementation of the 11th pay revision to
employees whose regularisation has not been
approved by the Government.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners
refers to paragraph (6) of Ext.P2 judgment
passed in writ petition filed by similarly situated
2024:KER:78488
persons, which reads as follows:-
"6................................................
As such, there is merit in the
contention that the Government
cannot feign ignorance about the
decision taken by the Council.
Moreover, Ext. P2 shows that, at
least in the case of the first
petitioner, a proposal had been
submitted to the Government
seeking ratification of the
appointment. As directed by the
Government, the proposal was
placed before the Executive
Committee and the Committee
ratified the Council's decision to
regularise the first petitioner's
service. In such circumstances, it is
doubtful whether, at a later point of
time, the respondents can contend
that the appointment of the
2024:KER:78488
petitioners is bad for want of
Government approval".
3. It is contended by the petitioners that
on the basis of the finding in Ext.P2 as extracted
above, the 2nd respondent is bound to extend the
benefit of the 11th Pay revision to the petitioner
de hors Ext.P4 as there is no requirement for
ratification of the decision taken by the Council
for his regularisation.
Accordingly, in the light of Ext.P2
judgment, there will be a direction to the 2 nd
respondent to pass appropriate orders in the
matter of extending the benefit of 11 th Pay
Revision to the petitioner in the light of Exts.P2,
2024:KER:78488
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
2024:KER:78488
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit p1 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2012 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit p 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)
NO. 41113/2017 DATED 13.05.2022 AND
CONNECTED CASE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(MS)
NO.01/2024/S&TD DATED 26.02.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:
KSCSTE/226/2021-CL DATED 22.03.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
