Kerala High Court
Pramod K.M vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
2025:KER:7560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14863 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
PRAMOD K.M.
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.MUKUNDAN, WORKING AS CASUAL LABOURER, RARS,
AMBALAYAL, WAYANAD, RESIDING AT KANJIRAPARAMBIL,
AMBALAVAYAL P.O., MANKOMBU, WAYANAD - 673 593.
BY ADVS.
NIRMAL V NAIR
SHRI.AKHIL ALPHONSE G.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANHAPURAM -
695001.
2 KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKARA,
KAU P.O., THRISSUR - 680 656.
3 THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KERALA
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD - 673
593.
4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, KERALA
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD - 673
593.
WP(C) No. 14863 of 2020 :2:
2025:KER:7560
BY ADV SMT.SURYA BINOY
GP- NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 14863 of 2020 :3:
2025:KER:7560
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
===========================
WP(C) No. 14863 of 2020
============================
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ order or direction and to declare that the
petitioner is entitled to be granted all the consequential
service benefits upon his reinstatement with effect from
the date of his suspension/disengagement including
absorption as a Permanent Labourer with effect from the
date of absorption of his juniors and for reckoning his
notional service as a Permanent Labourer for all
consequential benefits including arrears of pay and
allowances, seniority etc.;
ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction commanding the
respondents 2 to 4 to notionally absorb the petitioner as
a Permanent Labourer with effect from the date of
absorption of his juniors as per Exhibit P14 and to reckon
his notional service as a Permanent Labourer for all
consequential benefits including arrears of pay and
allowances, seniority etc.;
iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction commanding the
respondents 2 to 4 to draw and disburse the arrears of
pay and allowances due to the petitioner for the period
for which he was suspended/disengaged, due to the
2025:KER:7560
pendency of the criminal proceedings, with interest @
12% per annum from the date on which the amount fell
due till the date of actual payment;
iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the
court may deem fit to grant and
v) Grant the cost of the writ petition."
2. Petitioner participated in a selection process conducted
by the official respondents for selecting and appointing casual
labourers in their Regional Agricultural Research Station,
Ambalavayal, and the petitioner was ranked No.1 in the final rank
list for casual labourers as evident from Ext.P1 final ranked list.
Consequently petitioner was granted appointment as per Ext.P2
order and he commenced work as a casual labourer with effect from
23.05.2014. Petitioner would contend that the casual labourers
working in various farms under the 2 nd respondent can aspire for
absorption as permanent labourer, and thereafter based on his
seniority can also aspire for appointment to Group D post under the
1st respondent University. Petitioner relying on Ext.P3 Government
order dated 24.11.1999 would submit that all casual labourers under
the 2nd respondent University who completes 240 days of duty is
entitled for absorption as permanent labourer in accordance with
seniority, subject to availability of vacancy in the cadre of
permanent labourers. Ext.P3 order was implemented in the 2 nd
respondent University as per Ext.P4 order dated 13.03.2000.
2025:KER:7560
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, Ext.P6 reply dated
03.10.2018 issued by the 3 rd respondent under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 reveals that the petitioner has completed 240
days of duty in the year 2015 itself. Thus he has become eligible for
absorption in the available vacancy of permanent labourer in the
year 2015 itself. Unfortunately the petitioner was arrayed as an
accused in Crime No.475 of 2015 of Ambalavayal Police Station
alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC on
the allegation that the petitioner along with the 1 st accused had
abetted the suicide of one Narayanan on 24.08.2015. It is submitted
that he has been falsely implicated in the above said crime and has
been granted pre-arrest bail as per Ext.P7 order in BA No.5561 of
2015 by this Court. Due to registration of the above said crime
petitioner was put off from duty with effect from 18.12.2015 as per
Ext.P8 order. A perusal of Ext.P8 reveal that the proceedings were
initiated relying on Rule 10(1)(b) of the Kerala Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Rules, 1960'). The office bearers of the trade union of
which petitioner belongs to submitted Ext.P9 representation before
the 3rd respondent requesting to reinstate the petitioner as his
disengagement was unjustified and unwarranted. Petitioner also
submitted Ext.P10 representation requesting the same. A similar
2025:KER:7560
representation as Ext.P12 was also submitted before the 2 nd
respondent.
4. Petitioner would submit that even in Ext.P13 order,
wherein the 2nd respondent issued a proceedings enrolling various
casual labourers in the worker's provident fund of the University the
name of the petitioner was also included. Petitioner would contend
that, subsequently 56 casual labourers who were junior to the
petitioner in Ext.P1 rank list were absorbed as permanent casual
labourers in the available vacancy as evident from Ext.P14.
Subsequent to Ext.P14, around 88 juniors of the petitioner were
absorbed as permanent casual labourers from time to time, and the
petitioner would continue to remain disengaged due to the
pendency of the criminal case against him. While so, the petitioner
was completely exonerated in the criminal case as per Ext.P15
judgment in SC No.17 of 2016 of the Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Kalpetta, Wayanad. It was specifically found in Ext.P15 judgment
that there was no antemortem injuries found on the deceased by the
Pathologists and hence there was no evidence of an assault of the
deceased as alleged, and therefore concluded that there is no
evidence that the petitioner had abetted the suicide of the
deceased. Immediately thereafter petitioner submitted Ext.P16
request before the 3rd respondent requesting to reinstate and absorb
2025:KER:7560
him as permanent labourer retrospectively with effect from the date
of absorption of his immediate juniors with all consequential
benefits. Pursuant to Ext.P17 the petitioner was directed to be
reinstated as a casual labourer but the plea of the petitioner for
absorbing him as a permanent labourer with effect from the date of
absorption of his juniors was not considered by the 2 nd respondent as
evident from Ext.P17 order. Based on Ext.P17 petitioner was
reinstated as casual labourer with effect from 13.12.2018 as per
Ext.P18 order dated 31.12.2018.
5. Aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner was not
absorbed as a permanent labourer with effect from the date of
absorption of his immediate juniors, petitioner has submitted
Ext.P19 representation before the 3rd respondent. No action was
taken pursuant to Ext.P19. But even after filing Ext.P19 another
junior of the petitioner in Ext.P1 rank list was absorbed as
permanent casual labourer as evident from Ext.P20. While so, the
petitioner as per Ext.P21 order was treated as a new entrance in the
seniority list of casual labourers for the year 2015 and thereafter
aggrieved by the same, petitioner submitted Ext.P22 representation
requesting for absorbing him as permanent labourer with effect from
the date of absorption of his immediate juniors. Till date no action
has been taken on the same. Petitioner would submit that his non-
2025:KER:7560
appointment as a permanent labourer is causing serious prejudice to
the petitioner in as much as going by Kerala Agricultural University
(prescribing method of appointment, qualification, salary and
allowances and duties of the post of class IV) Statutes 50% of the
vacancy in Class IV posts of the University are to be filled up from
among the permanent labourers and plantation workers, 90% of
which are earmarked for permanent labourers. The non-absorption
of the petitioner as permanent labourer entails deprivation of the
civil rights which he is entitled to be restored on reinstated after
exoneration of the criminal proceedings and the refusal to do so is
unjust, unfair, illegal and arbitrary.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that when the petitioner is put off from duty or disengaged
based on the provisions of Rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules, 1960, he is
entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits on being
exonerated in the criminal proceedings as provided under Rule 57
and 58 of Part I Kerala Service Rules. Petitioner also relies on the
judgment of this Court in Saradamma v. Supdt. Of Post Offices
ILR 1982 (2) Ker.299, wherein it was held that whatever may be
the nomenclature (suspension/put off) used to prevent the
incumbent from his duties and drawing the regular perquisites due
to him, the general principles of the law of suspension is applicable
2025:KER:7560
to such action. Therefore it is contended that when an employee is
suspended on account of pendency of criminal proceedings he is
entitled to be restored with all consequential benefits including
arrears of pay and allowances, seniority etc. Petitioner also relies on
the judgments in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
(Administration), Madras v. S.Nagoor Meera [(1995) 3 SCC
377] and KSEB Ltd, Trivandrum and Others v. Damodaran P.
[2017 (3) KLT 794], and contended that when an employee who
has been suspended owing to criminal proceedings pending against
him, and when he is reinstated on exoneration he is entitled to all
the benefits to which he would have been entitled had he continued
in service. Reliance was also placed on the decree in Union of India
v. K.V. Janakiraman [AIR 1991 SC 2010] that when an employee
who is kept away from duty owing to criminal proceedings he is
entitled for being granted the entire pay and allowances for the said
period as he was kept away from duty due to no fault on his part.
7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd
respondent mainly contending that consequent to the involvement
of the petitioner in a crime he was disengaged and such
disengagement from work cannot be termed as suspension, but the
action was done following the provisions laid down in 10(1)(b) of the
Rules, 1960. It is further contended that the consideration for
2025:KER:7560
permanency of casual labourers in Kerala Agricultural University is
not on the basis of the rank list prepared for appointment of casual
labourerers, but is strictly based on the annual seniority list of casual
labourerers which is prepared based on the actual work days
completed during the previous calendar year (i.e. January to
December) and eligible leaves available in a calendar year. It is
contended that the petitioner has not completed 240 working days
during 2015 and such contention is absolutely false. What has been
done as per Ext.P8 is directing the petitioner to abstain from duty as
he was charged with a criminal offence and there was no question of
suspension in respect of a casual labourer. The inclusion of the
petitioner in the provident fund scheme also will not entitle the
petitioner to continue in service as he was a temporary worker.
Though the petitioner could have been dismissed from the post for
his alleged involvement in the criminal case, taking a humanitarian
ground the petitioner was directed to abstain from duty till the
disposal of the criminal case, and as the criminal case was entered
up in acquittal he was reinstated in service also. If a casual labourer
is absent from duty in the previous year the seniority will loose in
the next year's revision of seniority list, and thus the seniority of the
petitioner has dropped to 83rd rank on annual revision, and therefore
petitioner was not qualified for the position. It is further submitted
2025:KER:7560
that the petitioner has misappropriated Exts.P3 and P4 orders, and
the acquittal granted by the criminal Court was only for the reason
that the prosecution could not prove the charge against the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Taking into consideration above
facts and circumstances the petitioner cannot claim senior service
benefit upon re-engagement with effect from the date of
disengagement after he was acquitted from service.
8. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner mainly
contending that, as per the judgment in Saradamma's case cited
supra the general principles of law governing suspension can be
applied to an action of put off also. The petitioner has a further
contention that the seniority is fixed based on minimum period of
working of 240 days in the previous year which was done away with
as evident from Exts.P3 and P4 and the said contention to the
contrary is without any basis. Petitioner contended that several of
his seniors were appointed as permanent casual labourers, and only
for the reason that the petitioner was alleged to have been involved
in a criminal case that his promotion was declined. The stand taken
by the counter affidavit that Ext.P5 judgment does not give a clean
acquittal to the petitioner is also without any basis, and a mere
perusal of Ext.P15 judgment would show that the petitioner and the
co-accused were acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove the
2025:KER:7560
charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on an evaluation
of the materials on record. Petitioner would reiterate that it is settled
position of law that an employee who has been suspended or any
pendency of criminal proceedings and he is thereafter reinstated
upon acquittal he is entitled to be restored with all what was lost
during such period. In view of the above, petitioner prayed that all
the reliefs sought for in the writ petition ought to have been granted.
9. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
10. Admittedly, petitioner was included in the final rank list
for casual labourers prepared based on communal rotation and in
Ext.P1 rank list petitioner was ranked No.1, and based on the same
petitioner is appointed as casual labourer. To an information sought
under the Right to Information Act as per Ext.P5 as to the number of
days the petitioner has worked, a reply was given as Ext.P6 stating
that for the period from 23.06.2014 to 18.12.2015 petitioner had
worked 343 days. Taking into consideration the above facts it is the
contention of the petitioner that based on the seniority in Ext.P1
rank list of casual labourers wherein the petitioner is ranked No.1
and based on the number of days he has worked as evident from
Ext.P6 reply, petitioner is entitled for appointment as permanent
labourer. To which the specific contention of the University in the
counter affidavit is that the consideration of permanency of casual
2025:KER:7560
labourers in the University is not based on the rank list prepared for
appointment as casual labourers and it is strictly based on the
annual seniority list of casual labourers which is prepared based on
the actual working days completed during the previous calendar
year i.e. from January to December and eligible leaves availed
during the calendar year. Ext.P3 is the Government order issued by
the Agricultural Department dated 24.11.1999, wherein a decision
was taken that casual labourers of all Government owned farms
were to be regularised as permanent labourers on completion of 240
days of duty giving away the condition that the employee should
have worked 240 days in the previous calendar year. A perusal of
Ext.P3 Government order also reveal that the appointment as
permanent labourer can be based on seniority and on the basis of
the number of days the casual temporary employees has worked in
the said farms. Ext.P4 is the proceedings issued by the University,
wherein Ext.P3 order of the Government was implemented in the
University.
11. In view of implementation of Ext.P3 Government order in
the University and as per Ext.P4 the stand of the University in the
counter affidavit that the consideration of permanency of casual
labourers in Universities is not based on rank list prepared for casual
labourers and that it is based on the annual seniority list of casual
2025:KER:7560
labourers prepared based on the actual working days completed
during the previous calendar year cannot be accepted. Eventhough
the petitioner made reliance on Exts.P3 and P4 no reasons have
been stated in the counter affidavit as to why Exts.P3 and P4 orders
are not applicable in the case of the petitioner or the employees
working in the Universiy except for a bald statement that Exts.P3
and P4 is misinterpreted by the petitioner to mislead the Court.
Therefore, I am of the view that the appointment of petitioner as a
permanent labourer is to be governed by Exts.P3 and P4. Though the
petitioner is ranked No.1 in the Ext.P1 rank list and had the requisite
number of working days as provided in Exts.P3 and P4 the only
reason for not absorbing the petitioner as a permanent labourer is
his involvement in a criminal case. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case as per
Ext.P15 judgment. The contention raised by the University in their
counter affidavit is that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges
as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and that it is not a case of a honourable
acquittal. A perusal of Ext.P15 judgment especially paragraphs 19
and 27 reveal that there is a categoric find that there are no
ingredients to constitute the allegation of instigation against the
petitioner and that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the
2025:KER:7560
petitioner has abetted the commission of the suicide. Paragraphs 19
and 27 of Ext.P15 is extracted below:-
"19. It is pertinent to note that the threat alleged to have
been made by the accused persons to the deceased that the
deceased had no other option than to commit suicide or the
alleged assualt on the deceased, does not by itself constitute
the ingredients of instigation, threat given by accused
persons to the deceased is that the deceased has no other
option than to commit suicide. This itself does not constitute
the ingredients of instigation. The word instigates means
incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action
or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the
necessary ingredient of instigation.
...
27. In order to bring a case within the purview of Sec306 IPC,
the person who is said to have abetted the commission of
suicide must have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. The evidence is not sufficient to come to a
conclusion that the accused persons had caused physical
torture to the deceased or mentally tormented him
continuously so as to drive him to commit suicide."
Therefore, a reading of Ext.P15 will not show that petitioner has
been acquitted granting him the benefit of doubt but Court has
clearly found that none of the ingredients of Section 306 is attracted,
after analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore,
after the petitioner was acquitted of the alleged offences as per
Ext.P15 judgment and taking into consideration Exts.P3 and P4
2025:KER:7560
orders and Ext.P6 reply given by the 3 rd respondent, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner is entitled for being considered for
absorption as a permanent labourer from the date on which his
immediate junior was absorbed as permanent labourer, in as much
as petitioner could not be absorbed as a permanent labourer only for
his alleged involvement in the above stated crime.
12. A perusal of Ext.P3 order would reveal that petitioner was
kept out of service only for his alleged involvement in the criminal
case based on 10(1)(b) of the Rules, 1960. The petitioner on the
strength of the judgment in Saradamma's case cited supra would
contend that whatever be the nomenclature used (suspension/put
off) to prevent the incumbent from his duties and drawing the
regular perquisites due to him, the general principle of law of
suspension is applicable to such action and thus as per the general
rules of suspension that when an employee is suspended on account
of pendency of criminal proceedings he is entitled for being restored
with all his consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and
allowances, seniority etc. on being acquitted of the charges in the
criminal case.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner is entitled for being considered for
absorption as a permanent labourer without taking into
2025:KER:7560
consideration his involvement in the criminal case as he has been
acquitted by the trial Court on a finding that the ingredients of
Section 306 IPC is not attracted. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P19
request in this regard before the 3 rd respondent which is stated to be
pending consideration. Taking into consideration the above facts and
circumstances and the finding of this Court as above the 3 rd
respondent shall consider the request made by the petitioner in
Ext.P19 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or any
other affected parties, and a decision in this regard shall be taken
within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment
With the above said direction the writ petitioner is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
2025:KER:7560
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14863/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL RANKED LIST OF
CASUAL LABOURERS (MEN) AS PER COMMUNAL
ROASTER.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C907/2010(1)
DATED 22/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.323/99/AGRI
DATED 24/11/99 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.A.(F2)/43242/99 DATED
13/03/2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
12/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2-3541/18(1)
DATED 03/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT, 2005.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/10/2015
IN B.A.NO.5561/2015 ON THE FILES OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C 907/10 DATED
15/12/2015.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
28/01/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE BEARERS
OF THE KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY FARM
WORKERS UNION (CITU), AMBALAVAYAL UNIT
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01/03/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
2025:KER:7560
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.G.A./F1/6167/2015 DATED APRIL 2016 FROM
THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING A REPORT FROM
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25/06/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.W.DA
1/6853/2016 DATED 29/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C 907/10 DATED
03/10/2016 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30/08/2018 IN S.C.NO.70/2016 OF THE COURT
OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II,
KALPETTA, WAYANAD.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
05/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.G.A./F1/6167/2015 DATED 18/12/2018
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C/907/10 DATED
31/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY F THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19/01/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C 1215/18
DATED 03/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2.3122/17
DATED 03/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23/09/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
2025:KER:7560
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
NO.GA/E3/16130/91 DATED 14/6/2008
PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE NO.23/2009
DATED 9/6/2009.
