[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.Sahadevan vs The State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:27593
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WA NO. 2572 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2024 IN WP(C) NO.8542 OF
2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 P.SAHADEVAN, AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PAZHANIMALA, CHAMIYARKALAM,
ERUTHEMPATHY .P.O., KOZHINJAMPARA (VIA),
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555
2 C.ARUCHAMI, S/O.CHAMUNNI, SURYAPARA,
ATHICODE P.O., KOZHINJAMPARA-678554
BY ADV SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES
(F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC SECTOR REVALUATION AND
INTERNAL AUDIT BOARD CMD BUILDINGS, 5TH FLOOR,
C.V.RAMANPILLAI ROAD, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
*3 THE CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LTD., REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHITTUR NO.4322,
MENONPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678556
NOW UNDER LIQUIDATION REPRESENTED BY THE
LIQUIDATOR, CO-OPEARTIVE SUGARS LTD.NO.4322
CHITTUR AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR, DISTRICT
INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2026:KER:27593
WA 2572/25
2
(ADDRESS OF R3 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN
I.A.NO.1/2026 DATED 27.03.2026).
BY ADVS.
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)
SRI. K. ANAND - SR.
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - G.P
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:27593
WA 2572/25
3
JUDGMENT CR
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellants concede that they were working as 'seasonal
workers' in the services of the 3 rd respondent - Co-operative
Sugars Ltd.; further admitting that they were offered a Voluntary
Retirement Scheme (VRS), under a program called Social Safety
Net Program (SSNP), propounded by the Government of Kerala.
Their grievance is that, in the SSNP and VRS under it, they have
been treated to be on par only with 'badalis' by the Government;
though, they had been recommended to be equated as regular
employees by the 3rd respondent, as early as in the year 2005
through Exts.P2 and P3 letters.
2. The appellants assert that their manner of working,
hours of employment and terms of engagement, are on par with
regular employees, especially because, though they are called
'seasonal workers', they are expected to be available 24 hours as
and when duty is generated; but that this was not considered by
2026:KER:27593
the Government, while it formulated the SSNP program and VRS
under it. They say that they, therefore, approached the
Government for modification of the terms of VRS, but that it has
been rejected through Ext.P7 order dated 15.01.2014; which
constrained them to approach the learned Single Judge through
the Writ Petition.
3. Sri.P.R.Venkatesh - learned counsel for the appellants,
alleged that the learned Single Judge has not considered his
clients' contentions in its proper perspective, but has merely
approved the stand of the Government in Ext.P7; and
consequently, that they have been left with no other option, but
to file this Appeal.
4. Smt.Latha Anand - learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd
respondent, conceded that Exts.P2 and P3 recommendations were
made in the past; but pointed out that, it was so done in the year
2005 when the Company was also doing well financially. She
explained that, subsequently, the Company had to face severe
2026:KER:27593
financial crisis on account of various factors beyond their control
and that it is, in fact, now facing liquidation. She added that, the
claims of the appellants are untenable at this stage, not only for
the afore reasons, but also because they have not challenged the
SSNP or VRS, but have only chosen to seek a modification of the
same before the Government, which has been denied. She
concluded her submissions asserting that, in such circumstances,
the factum of her client having made Exts.P2 and P3
recommendations would be totally irrelevant now because, the
grant of VRS and such other benefits, are within the realm of the
policy making competence of the Government, which, in normal
circumstances, would not be amenable to judicial assessment.
5. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government
Pleader, adopted most of the submissions of Smt.Latha Anand;
affirming that, unless the SSNP or VRS under it had been
challenged, the appellants could not have even moved the
Government seeking modification of its terms. He pointed out that,
2026:KER:27593
even going by Ext.P7, what the appellants sought before the
Government was a modification of the terms qua their VRS, but
that this has been rejected taking note of all relevant and germane
aspects, including the financial crisis of the 3 rd respondent, as also
that they were only 'seasonal workers' working during the
'crushing seasons' which is below six months a year. He
contended that, in such circumstances, the modification of the
SSNP, to treat the appellants on par with the regular employees, is
untenable; and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed
no error.
6. We have examined the impugned judgment, adverting
to all the above rival submissions and materials on record.
7. We are dealing with this issue not from the standpoint
whether the 3rd respondent is facing financial crisis or otherwise
because, the said consideration would be irrelevant, if the
appellants are found to be eligible to the reliefs sought for.
8. The appellants seek that their terms under the VRS be
2026:KER:27593
modified, treating them on par with regular employees. Such a
claim is founded on facts and the answer would also depend upon
the valuation of the same. Going by Ext.P7, the Government
appears to have considered the claim of the appellants, to find
that they are only 'seasonal workers', called to work during the
'crushing seasons', which is less than six months. The contra-
assertion of the appellants is that, though they are 'seasonal
workers', required only during the afore season, they are expected
to be available 24 hours because, they do not know when sugar
cane would arrive for them to commence duty.
9. It is thus luculent that even the appellants do not have
a case that they are regular employees, but only seek a benefit
with the latter category, on the assertion that they were expected
to be available in service 24 hours a day. This assertion, however,
has not been established, particularly when both the 3rd respondent
and the Government take a contrary view.
10. Coming to Exts.P2 and P3, no doubt, in the year 2005,
2026:KER:27593
the Managing Director of the 3rd respondent has recorded that the
company has requested the Government to treat the appellants and
others on par with the regular employees. However, there is
nothing before us to show that these recommendations were
accepted by the Government at any point of time; and the
appellants also do not have a case that they had litigated for such
benefit thereafter. Even without doing so, they now are seen to be
imputing that the SSNP and the VRS under it are illegal and
unlawful qua their entitlement. We are afraid that we cannot enter
into the merits of the same since, as rightly found by the learned
Single Judge, this is squarely within the policy making realm of
the Government. When the Government has taken the decision
based on all relevant facts to hold that the appellants cannot be
equated with regular employees, there is hardly anything this
Court can, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, intervene into, or do, going by the well-recognized
constraints of jurisdiction.
2026:KER:27593
In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
RR
2026:KER:27593
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2572 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED
BY G. KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
COIMBATORE
Annexure 2 True copy of medical certificates from
the year 2022 issue by Amrutha Hospital
