IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19019 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ E.N.PRABHAKARAN, DRIVER (T-2), NBPGR REGIONAL STATION, VELLANIKKARA, KAU(PO), THRISSUR -680 656. BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. NATIONAL BUREAU OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES, PUSA CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST AND OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, NBPGR RESEARCH STATION, THRISSUR - 680 656. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.LESLIE STEPHEN,CG. FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 19019 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner joined the services of the 1st respondent at their Regional Station at Vellanikara as Ploughman (supporting staff Gr.I) He was appointed as Driver initially for six months. By Exhibit P1 order petitioner was confirmed in the post of Driver. He was then promoted as T-2 (Driver) with effect from 29.6.2001. According to him, his work is therefore confined to driving the jeep in the regional station. It is further submitted that there are three employees for performing the ploughing work in the Regional Station and one of them retired. Superior officers required the petitioner to help the Mazdoor in ploughing work.. Petitioner used to oblige . But later it was insisted that petitioner should perform the ploughing work with power tillers in addition to his normal duty. Apparently this was objected to by the petitioner W.P ( C) No. 19019 of 2008 2 who submitted Exhibit P3. Nothing was heard in this matter except an assurance that petitioner’s grievance will be looked into. Later, though there is advertisement taken out by the respondents for filling up the vacancy of Power Tiller Operator, no appointment was made thereon. Petitioner submits that the insistence to operate the power tiller is illegal in as much as that he is a driver and he can only be required to discharge the duties of driver. He cannot be asked to operate a power tiller which does not form part of the duties of driver. It is therefore that he challenge Exhibit P7 which is a memo issued inter alia alleging that the petitioner has declined to drive the power tiller/tractor which was assigned to him. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. They contend that earlier the petitioner was appointed as driver. It was made clear that he would be required to drive light motor vehicles including tractor as and when W.P ( C) No. 19019 of 2008 3 ordered by the Officer-in-charge and thereafter even when he was confirmed in the post of driver he was intimated that he will be required to act as driver of the tractor and power tiller as well. Reference is made to Exhibit R1 (e) which is a communication sent from the Senior Administrative officer of the 1st respondent issued on 9.5.2005 conveying approval of the competent authority to require the petitioner to perform the duty of driving of Tractor and Power Tiller as well as office vehicles as and when assigned to him. There is no justification for the petitioner to refuse to drive the Tractor and Power Tiller, it is contended. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is willing to drive the Tractor but should not be required to operate the Power Tiller as such. He submits that operation of the Power tiller without being attached to a tractor is not part of of the duties assigned to him. 3. Petitioner cannot insist that he should W.P ( C) No. 19019 of 2008 4 not be required to drive a Tractor which is also a light motor vehicle. He has license to drive a Tractor. In so far as the power tiller is concerned the petitioner cannot refuse to operate the same, if the same is also a light motor vehicle. 4. In the result, the 2nd respondent shall consider the petitioner's objections in this regard and pass an order with specific reference to the question as to whether the power tiller is also a light motor vehicle. If it is so, then the petitioner can be required to operate the same also. 5. Further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P7 shall stand stayed till orders in the nature as directed above is passed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, if the finding of the 2nd respondent is that the power tiller is also a light motor vehicle, petitioner shall be granted three weeks time to file a reply to Exhibit P7 and the matter shall be proceeded with thereafter, in accordance with law. I make it clear that these findings are only W.P ( C) No. 19019 of 2008 5 tentative. If the petitioner has any dispute as to the nature of the duties assigned to him then it is open to him to work out his remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 19019 of 2008 6 W.P ( C) No. 19019 of 2008 7