IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16328 of 2009(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.S.SUDHA, D/O.K.S.GOPINATHA PILLAI, BLOCK NO.321,KALLAR.P.O.,THOOKKUPALAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, (PEON, DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM). 2. P.M.LAILA, D/O. P.P.MUHAMMED, CHOORAVELIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA.P.O., THODUPUZHA(PEON, ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE THODUPUZHA) 3. T.E.SHAMSUDEEN, S/O. T.S.EBRAHIM, THANNICKAL HOUSE, KANJAR.P.O., IDUKKI, (PEON, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OFFICE, ELAPPARA). 4. K.I.ISSAHAK, S/O. K.S.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, KOCHAZHUTHIL HOUSE, BALAGRAM.P.O., III CAMP, IDUKKI,(PEON, ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICE NEDUMKANDAM). BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND, SMT.M.P.MARY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (D), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION REFORMS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16328/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DTD. 28/12/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(MS).NO.31/06/GAD DTD. 25/01/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. 29/1999 DTD. 15/09/1999 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(P).NO.817/95/58/FIN. DTD. 14/11/1995. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING G.O.(MS).NO.186/06/LSGD DTD. 03/08/2006. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/10/2006 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/02/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/02/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/03/2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO.8805/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 20/05/2008 ISSUED BY R.1 TO P.1. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/10/2008 PASSED BY R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.16328 OF 2009( I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Last Grade Employees in the Labour Department. Their grievance is that on account of lack of promotional avenues they are stagnating in the last grade service itself. It is contended that they were advised for appointment in the Labour Department from the common ranked list published for other departments as well. It is stated that several employees who were also ranked along with them and many of them much below to them in the ranked list were advised and appointed in other departments and that those employees have earned promotions and are working in higher posts in those departments. In this context counsel for the petitioner made reference to Exts.P1 to P4. 2. It is seen that petitioner represented the matter to the first respondent which resulted in Exts.P10 and P11 orders. In paragraph 4 to 6 of Ext.P11 it is stated thus. “Government have examined Ext.P8 representation filed by Smt. K.S. Sudha and 3 others. The petitioners are Class IV Employees in the Labour Department. Their main grievance is that they are WPC.No.16328 /09 :2 : not getting sufficient promotional avenues to higher cadres as provided to similarly situated LGSs in certain other Departments, such as Revenue, Forest, Panchayath & Municipalities, Economics & Statistics, Government Secretariat etc. According to them, the various promotional avenues available to the peons in the aforesaid Departments are denied to the petitioners as they are being Last Grade Servants of Labour Department, which is discriminatory . It is a fact that most of the class IV employees possess higher educational qualifications and owing to their appointment in Labour Department they are stagnated for long years. Incidentally it is noticed that the Kerala Labour Subordinate Service Special Rules does not contain ministerial posts such as LDC UDC etc. Since the proposal for amending the Last Grade Employees Service Rules for reserving certain percentage of higher posts in the subordinate service, for promotion is under active consideration of Government as a general issue it may not be possible to reserve certain percentage of clerical post exclusively in Labour Department to LGS as was done in the aforesaid Departments without making suitable amendment in the Special Rule for Kerala Last Grade Employees. 5. In the meantime, one of the petitioners was heard in the matter as directed in the judgment read as Ist paper above. Taking into consideration of all the above circumstances Government have arrived at a decision that the petitioner's case cannot be isolated and to be considered since the same issue is already under consideration in personnel & Administrative Reforms Department as a general issue and that their grievance can be redressed as and when the proposed amendment will come into force.” WPC.No.16328 /09 :3 : 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent being the state, is bound to provide promotional avenues for its employees. In support of this contention counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Anor. V. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anor. (AIR 1989 SC 1972),State of Tripura & Ors V. K.K.Roy (AIR 2004 SC 1249), Food Corporation of India & Ors. V. Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors. (2008(5)SCC 100). 4. Although, it is not within the province of this court to direct framing of rules, a reading of Ext.P11 order itself shows that respondents themselves have recognized the genuineness of the grievance of the petitioners and the necessity to amend the special rules to remedy their grievance. It is therefore that the respondents have already initiated proceedings in that direction. Such being the situation it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to frame necessary special rules as stated in Ext.P11 and in the counter affidavit and complete the process without delay. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to carry out the process of framing/modifying the WPC.No.16328 /09 :4 : special rules, in the manner as indicated in paragraphs 4,5,and 6 of Ext.P11 as extracted above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one year. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/