Shri Byju B vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 80 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shri Byju B vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026

WA No.3181 of 2025

                                      1
                                                         2026:KER:171
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                      &

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

  TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947

                             WA NO. 3181 OF 2025

           AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2025 IN WP(C)

NO.16676 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT:
              SHRI BYJU B,
              AGED 48 YEARS
              S/O BHASKARAN PILLAI, SPECIAL CLERK (ON TERMINATION
              FROM SERVICE), DIRECTORATE OF SAINIK WELFARE VIKAS
              BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, R/O LEKSHMI NIVAS,
              NJAKKUNILAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689656

              BY ADV SHRI.P.RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK
          WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
          695001

       2      THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              REPRESENTING THE FLAG FUND COMMITTEE AS ITS
              OFFICIAL MEMBER, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE,
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

       3      THE DIRECTOR -IN-CHARGE,
              SAINIK WELFARE & SECRETARY TO THE LEGAL FUND
              COMMITTEE, DIRECTORATE OF SAINIK WELFARE, VIKAS
              BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033


THIS       WRIT     APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR   ADMISSION   ON
18.12.2025,THE COURT ON 06.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA No.3181 of 2025

                                    2
                                                            2026:KER:171
                               JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. The present intra-court appeal filed under

Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment

dated 02.12.2025 in WP(C) No.16676/2025 whereby the learned

Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the

appellant. The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs in

the Writ Petition.

"(i). To issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to call for records leading to Exhibit P7 and to quash Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P7 as illegal, arbitrary and issued in violation of Articles 14.16 and 21 of the Constitution and also Article 311 of the Constitution.

(ii). To declare the following:-

(a). that the third respondent has no authority to issue Ext P6 and Exhibit P7 orders as he is without such authority and hence illegal.

(b).To declare that the petitioner by obeying the orders of the third respondent has not committed any violation of the code of conduct.

(c). That the petitioner is entitled to continue till he complete the age of 60 years or as decided by the flag Fund Committee,

(iii) to direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

2026:KER:171

(iv). To issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) To dispense with the translation of the document in the vernacular language. "

3. The brief facts of the case are that after

retirement from Military Service, the appellant was re-employed

in the Sainik Welfare Directorate as a Special Clerk to deal with

Armed Forces Flag Day Fund. His appointment was made by the

Armed Forces Flag Day Fund Committee. Thereafter, from time to

time, his period was extended till the next date of Flag Fund

meeting or till he completed 60 years of age. The appellant was

drawing remuneration of RS.28,500/- per month. Since numerous

complaints were received with regard to the functioning of the

Sainik Rest House, Thiruvananthapuram, an enquiry was

conducted in which it was revealed that while the appellant was

working as special clerk on temporary basis, he participated in

bidding process for selection of Contractor for running Canteen

in the Sainik Rest House. Thereafter, the appellant had also

executed an agreement for running Canteen. Prima facie, it was

2026:KER:171 found that the appellant being in contractual service of the

Sainik Welfare Flag Day Fund, committed a misconduct inasmuch

as he entered into a contract for running the Canteen which he

could not have done. It was also found that the appellant was the

President of Ex-service Eco-recycling Self Help Group. The

showcause notice was served on the appellant. He accepted the

mistakes. As a result, the service of the appellant was terminated

on completion of 179 days. The answering respondents came to

the conclusion that that the appellant had used his employment

in the Directorate to his benefit in entering into the contract for

running the Canteen. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed the

Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ

Petition on the ground that while the appellant was on

temporary employment under the Flag Fund Committee, he had

entered into commercial transactions with the Sainik Welfare

Board. He was running canteen and also a common service

centre. In view of the aforesaid services, his contractual

2026:KER:171 employment was terminated after completion of 179 days of

service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present

appeal.

5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that

the learned Single Judge has erred in mischarecterizing his

appointment as a temporary engagement under Rule 9(a)(1) of

the KS&SSR, whereas the post for the contractual creation of the

Armed Forces Flag Day Fund Committee was for a tenure fixed till

the next meeting of the Committee or on completion of 60 years

of age.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned

orders of termination was passed by the Director in Charge

without jurisdiction and in breach of contractual terms and

without approval of the appointing authority. The appellant was

relieved without issuing any charge memo, inquiry or

opportunity to defend which amounts to gross violation of the

principles of natural justice. These jurisdictional and procedural

lapses render the termination void ab initio and warrants

2026:KER:171 interference by this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned Senior Government

Pleader vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the

learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition

inasmuch as the appellant was found involved in doing side

business by entering into contract to run a canteen as well as

Security agency. As per rules, no government servant can pursue

any other profession/job or draw salary contrary to the rules. In

the present case, the appellant was drawing monthly salary from

the Army Welfare Flag Day Fund. Therefore, he could not have

entered into a contract with some private parties. This Writ

Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

9. On perusal of the documents including the

agreement to run the canteen, it can be seen that while the

appellant was in service, he had entered into a contract to run

the canteen and he also run the security agency. In view of the

2026:KER:171 aforesaid, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is

absolutely correct. We feel that there is no need to interfere with

the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly the

Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and substance is hereby

dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

sd/-

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

sd/-

P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE Nsd