Kerala High Court
Vijayachandran C vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025
WA NO.252/2025 1
2025:KER:42673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 252 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.11918 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VIJAYACHANDRAN C,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CLERK, TRAVANCORE
SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD, VALANJAVATTOM P.O.
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA -689104, RESIDING AT
LEKSHMI BHAVANAM, KUTTEMPEROOR P.O. MANNAR,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689623
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VALANJAVATTOM P O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
WA NO.252/2025 2
2025:KER:42673
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TRAVANCORE SUGARS
AND CHEMICALS LIMITED VALANJAVATTOM P O,
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
4 THE GENERAL MANAGER
TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED
VALANJAVATTOM P O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
5 THE DEPUTY MANAGER (PRODUCTION)
TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED
VALANJAVATTOM P O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
6 ADDL.R6.
RICHARD LARWINI,
D/O.LATE V THOMAS, PRF SQ NO.14,
VALANJAVATTAM P O, THIRUVALLA - 689101
7 ADDL.R7.
SREEJA V PILLAI,
D/O LATE P CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, HARIMANDIRAM
(POOVELIL), VALANJAVATTAM P.O., THIRUVALLA-689101
8 ADDL.R8.
ROSLY VARGHESE,
D/O P.V. VARGHESE, PARUVAMOOTTIL HOUSE,
VALANJAVATTAM P.O., THIRUVALLA - 689101
(ADDL.R6 TO R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
23-02-2024 IN IA 1/2023)
BY ADVS.
P.K.RAKESH KUMAR, SC, TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND
CHEMICAL LIMITED, THIRUVALLA
SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT. PLEADER, R1
T.P.PRADEEP, R6 & R8
M.JAYAKRISHNAN, R7
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.252/2025 3
2025:KER:42673
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
The appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
08.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.11918 of 2023 of the learned Single
Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C) and respondents
were the respondents therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as
per their status in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking
a declaration that he is entitled to be regularised in the post of LD
Clerk with effect from 01.09.2016 or at least with effect from
25.03.2023. He had also sought to quash Ext.P11 order appointing
LD clerks on a regular basis, to the extent it excluded the petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ
Petition with a direction to the respondent Corporation to offer the
appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the next
vacancy available under the 5% quota for making an appointment
under the compassionate appointment scheme.
4. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate, for the
2025:KER:42673
appellant/petitioner and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned
Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, Sri.T.P.Pradeep,
Advocate, for respondents 6 and 8 and Sri.M.Jayakrishnan,
Advocate, for the 7th respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the petitioner is the senior most among the persons appointed under
the compassionate appointment scheme, along with one Smt.Sreeja
and hence he is entitled to be granted regular appointment in the
post of LD Clerk with effect from 01.09.2016 or at least with effect
from 25.03.2023. However, Ext.P11 order had been passed
whereby the claim of the petitioner was overlooked and appointed
three persons mentioned in Ext.P8 order as LD Clerks, on a regular
basis excluding the petitioner. It is contended that since there is no
special order regarding the seniority in the compassionate
appointment scheme, the said seniority can be fixed as per the date
of valid application prescribed in Ext.P13 G.O.(P) No.33/2014/PS &
RD dated 26.09.2014. The learned counsel contended that
Exts.P14, P15 and P16 clearly reveal that the valid application date
of the party respondents 6, 7 and 8 are taken as the date of
2025:KER:42673
submission of legal heirship certificate, salary certificate and no
objection certificates, respectively. Relying on Ext.P17, it is
contended by the counsel that the date of re-submission of the
consent letter by the petitioner is dated 25.03.2021 while that of
respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 are on later dates. Given the said
position, it is submitted that the petitioner being the senior-most
person based on the valid application date, he is entitled to be
appointed and regularised in service by considering the date of
joining as 01.09.2016. The denial of the said benefit is termed as
unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that there is no illegality whatsoever in the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and that in the impugned judgment, the learned Single
Judge had correctly directed the respondent Corporation to offer the
appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the next
vacancy arising under the compassionate appointment scheme. The
learned Government Pleader submitted that the fixing of the valid
application date is done by the District Collector legally and in
accordance with due procedure. He relies on Ext.P18 letter issued
2025:KER:42673
by the District Collector wherein, after following the due process, it
had been informed that 25.03.2021 has been determined as the
valid application date applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that
the 1st respondent, by Ext.P8 had sanctioned to appoint 5 persons
out of 7 applicants under the dying in harness scheme in the post of
LD Clerk in the 2nd respondent Company and the 1 st respondent
accepted only 5 applicants and rejected two as they were not eligible
under Ext.P4. Thus, as per Ext.P4 only 3 senior-most persons would
be appointed under the compassionate scheme from 5 eligible
persons. Since in Ext.P4 order, there was no mention about the
criteria for fixing seniority of the applicants and by Ext.P12, the 1 st
respondent clarified that the seniority among the applicants under
compassionate appointment scheme should be determined based
on valid application date specified by the District Collectors after
scrutinising their application, the seniority was determined based on
the date of their valid application as provided by the District
Collectors concerned based on Ext.P13 order. The valid application
date of Richard Larwini, the 6th respondent, was 14.12.2016 and that
of the 7th respondent Sreeja V.Pillai was 21.12.2016 and that of the
2025:KER:42673
8th respondent Rosily Varghese was 3.11.2020. The senior most of
the 3 incumbents from the seniority list prepared according to the
report of the District Collector had been appointed. It is submitted
that there is no illegality in thus fixing the seniority based on the
report of the District Collector concerned and that the W.A. is not
sustainable and is only to be dismissed.
7. We have heard both sides and have duly considered the
submissions put forth. We note that the valid application dates have
been prepared by the District Collectors after following the due
process laid down in the said respect. Though the petitioner had
contended that the District Collectors had erred in fixing the valid
application dates in so far as dates adopted for the 6th, 7th and 8th
respondents varied between the date of submission of legal heirship
certificate, salary certificate and No objection certificates
respectively, we note that in the Writ Petition, the respective
decisions of the District Collectors fixing the valid application dates
produced as Exhibits P14, P15 and P16 had not been challenged or
sought to be quashed. The contention of the petitioner regarding the
alleged discrepancy in fixing the valid application dates by the
2025:KER:42673
District Collectors cannot be maintained without first challenging the
correctness of the said decisions arrived at by the District Collectors.
On the said count itself, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner has to
fail. Further, as rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, the
petitioners' turn would only come after that of respondents 6, 7 and 8
as per the seniority list prepared and the right of the petitioner has
been protected by holding that he should be offered the appointment
on compassionate grounds on the next vacancy available.
In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
