Vimalakumari M.K vs Dr. K Vasuki
2025 Latest Caselaw 5692 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vimalakumari M.K vs Dr. K Vasuki on 18 August, 2025

Author: Anil K. Narendran

Bench: Anil K. Narendran

                                   1

Con.Case (C)No.1173 of 2025

                                                      2025:KER:62232

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

                                  &

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

     MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947

                      CON.CASE(C) NO.1173 OF 2025

 ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN OP(KAT) NO.77 OF

                   2024 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            VIMALAKUMARI M.K.
            AGED 67 YEARS
            W/O.K.V.KUNHIKANNAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED)
            I.T.I, KANNUR, RESIDING AT KALATHIL HOUSE,
            C/O.MUKUNDAN, KOTTAM, MUNDALLOOR P.O., KANNUR, KERALA,
            PIN - 670622

            BY ADVS.SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
            SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
            SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1      DR. K VASUKI
            AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
            SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
            TRAINING, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
            695001

     2      M.A. BALAKRISHNAN
            AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
            PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT I.T.I, KANNUR, PIN - 670007

     3      SUFIYAN AHMED
            AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
            DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
            TRAINING, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
            695014
                                   2

Con.Case (C)No.1173 of 2025

                                                    2025:KER:62232


     4       S. SUNIL RAJ
             AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
             ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), STATUE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001




OTHER PRESENT:

             SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


         THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                      3

Con.Case (C)No.1173 of 2025

                                                           2025:KER:62232


                              JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this contempt case, invoking the

provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971, alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in

Annexure I judgment of this Court dated 13.03.2024 in

O.P(KAT)No.77 of 2024. Paragraphs 3 to 5 and also the last

paragraph of that judgment read thus;

"3. The status of the petitioner claiming as moger was not accepted by the Scrutiny Committee. This resulted in litigation. The question now to be considered is that, whether the petitioner should be denied pensionary benefits or not. If a patent fraud has been committed, no doubt, such persons should be denied pensionary benefit. The line of decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court really established the settled position of law as above. However, we note the issue relating to the caste status claimed by the petitioner as a moger could not be resolved by the State, as there was a delay in conducting enquiry.

4. In the light of directions given in other judgment, We also note that the Government passed an order in similar circumstances, allowing pensionary benefits by G.O.4595/ 2021 dated 08.05.2021. In a similar matter, Sri. P.P.Suresh Babu, an Assistant Engineer retired from PWD Department, approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.1925 of 2021, as he was not given pensionary benefit. Thereafter, based on the

2025:KER:62232

direction of the Tribunal, he was given pensionary benefit. Noting the above direction, the Single Bench of this Court in M.F.A.(SCSTCC) No.135 of 2005 ordered that similarly situated persons also should be given pensionary benefit and this Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 24.04.2023 in M.F.A.(SCSTCC) No.135 of 2005, held as follows:

5. I am of the view that this is a case where appellants can claim their retirement benefits for more than one reason. Firstly, a similar order has been passed by the KAT upholding the retirement benefits of the 4th appellant and that has become final. The 4th appellant is already enjoying the pensionary benefits since there was no challenge against the order of the KAT, I am of the view that even if KAT orders that, it is subject to the orders to be passed in this MFA, that order has become irreversible by efflux of time. Secondly for the reason that, there was no fraud committed by the appellants in describing them as a moger. The pensionary benefits cannot be denied to officers as the officers retired from the service before the enquiry is concluded. The scrutiny committee's report could be relied upon only to prevent continuation of enjoyment of status as an employee based on an appointment made in a quota earmarked for scheduled caste. In a matter like this, the pensionary benefits flow from the service rendered for a long period of years of service to the State. Though the employment can be struck down, the pensionary benefits need not be struck down unless there is a manifest fraud committed by the employee.

5. The petitioner retired in the year 2013. Pension is a

2025:KER:62232

savings of an employee, that can be deprived only in accordance with the procedure established by law or when it is shown that the employment itself has obtained by playing fraud. In the light of the factual situation as above, we cannot hold that any fraud has been committed by the petitioner, though her status as a member of moger community, is set to be retained by this Court.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the official respondents are directed to disburse the pensionary benefit of the petitioner, within a period of two months. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of."

2. On 02.06.2025, when this contempt case came up for

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time

to get instructions.

3. An affidavit dated 14.07.2025 has been placed on

record by the 3rd respondent, producing therewith Annexure

R3(a) order dated 04.10.2024 and Annexure R3(b) order dated

12.05.2025. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said affidavit read thus;

"5. Meanwhile, legal opinion furnished by the Special Government Pleader (SC/ST), wherein it is stated that as the 1st petitioner Sri. Snehajan in W.P(C)No.13618 of 2012, retired on 31.10.2020 as Chief Manager in SBI, availing pension and other consequential benefits, there is no valid reason to challenge judgment dated 13.03.2024 of the Hon'ble Court in O.P(KAT)No.77 of 2024 and hence there is no scope for further appeal in this case. It is also

2025:KER:62232

informed therein that if the Hon'ble High Court finds in W.P.(C)No.13618 of 2012 that the petitioner has committed any fraud and the Caste Certificate obtained by the petitioner is false, then the concerned authority or the Hon'ble Court can take action against the petitioner under Section 16 of the Kerala(SC/ST) Regulation of issue of Community Certificate Act, 1996.

6. It is respectfully submitted that in compliance of the judgment dated 13.03.2024, all pensionary benefits including Commutation, DCRG, pension and family pension were sanctioned to the petitioner by the 3" respondent, Director of Training vide Order No.DT/1926/2024-A3 dated 04.10.2024. True copy of the above order is produced herewith and may be marked as Annexure R3(a). Training Director has informed the Government that the Accountant General approved and disbursed her pension for the period from 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2024 on 02.11.2024, commutation and DCRG on 07.11.2024. In order to sanction the surrender, increment and promotion in respect of Smt. Vimalakumari.M.K, the service rendered by her for the period from 2003 to 2013 need be regularized, But the regularization of service for the above said period can be done only after passing the final verdict by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P(C)No.13618 of 2012.

7. Since the petitioner was terminated from service vide Order No.A3/6800/03 dated 27.03.2003 of the Director of Training and rejoined in service as per stay order of the Hon'ble High Court on 22.04.2003, the period between her termination from service and upto the date of rejoining

2025:KER:62232

was not regularised. Her annual increments from 2003 to 2013 were not granted.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application vide letter dated 29.10.2024 before the Department requesting that the pension should be fixed as per the Order of the Hon'bie High Court, taking into account the leave surrender, increment, promotion, etc to which she was entitled and withheld. On the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court clarification has been sought from the Government on the application made by her dated 29.10.2024 and the Government has clarified vide letter No.C1/289/2024/LBR dated 12.05.2025 that the period from 2003 to 2013 could be regularized only on the basis of the final judgment in W.P.(C)No.13618 of 2012 and Leave Surrender and her increment could be granted only after regularising the above period and also the matter of granting promotion can be examined only on the basis of the said judgment. The same has been intimated to the petitioner vide letter No.DT/1926/2024-A3 dated 19.05.2025. A true copy of the above Government letter is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(b). In order to sanction the surrender, increment and promotion in respect of Smt. Vimalakumari.M.K, the service rendered by her for the period from 2003 to 2013 need be regularized. But the regularization of service for the above said period can be done only after passing the final verdict by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P(C)No.13618 of 2012."

4. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,

the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

2025:KER:62232

petitioner proposes to challenge Annexure R3(a) order dated

04.10.2024 of the Director of Training, Department of Industrial

Training, in appropriate proceedings. Without prejudice to the

aforesaid right of the petitioner, this contempt case may be

closed.

Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, this contempt case is closed, without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure

R3(a) order dated 04.10.2024 of the Director of Training,

Department of Industrial Training, in appropriate proceedings

before the appropriate forum.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE AV

2025:KER:62232

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1173/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN O.P(KAT)NO.77 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2024 IN CON.CASE (C)NO.2366/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DT/1926/2024-A3 DATED 4.10.2024 OF DIRECTOR OF TRAINING Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DT/1926/2024-A3 DATED 4.10.2024 OF DIRECTOR OF TRAINING Annexure R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER NO.C1/289/2024/LBR DATED 12.5.2025