IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25078 of 2004(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- BEENA V., PANDIKASALAKKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., ASST.GR.II, KERALA CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS LTD; PALLIPPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.KKM.SHERIF MR.LAL K.JOSEPH MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.K.K.RATNALATHA SMT.K.A.CIJILA SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPONENTS LTD; K.R.PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, REP: BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. R2 BY ADVS. MR.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR, MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD. R3 BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25078/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 23.3.94. P2:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.62/203/ID DTD. 3.6.03 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.73/2003/ID DTD. 24.6.2003. P4:- COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DTD. 26.9.03. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 6.9.03. P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 23.8.03. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KCCKL/2003-04/226/DTD. 1.11.03. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER KCCL/2003-04/244 DTD. 3.11.03. P9:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.3965/H3 /04/ID DTD. 11.2.04. P10:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. KCCL/03-04/37131 DTD. 31.3.04. P11:- COPY OF THE 3965 H3 04 ID DT. 22.4.04. P12:- COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET. P13:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.R 1b(1) 27945/01/GW DTD. 16.3.04. P14:- COPY OF THE R.IB(1) 27945/01/GW DTD. 13.4.04. P15:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30.3.05 IN WPC. NO.23725/04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16.10.04 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) TO THE SECRETARY, K.S.E.BOARD. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C. No.25078 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the advice given by the PSC, vide letter No. R1B(4) 20357/92/GW dated 8.3.1994, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-II, in the Kerala Construction Components Ltd. K.R.Puram, Cherthala, which is a government owned company, in the scale of pay of Rs.825- 20-925-1100-30-1250-40-1290. Subsequently, the above company was closed down by the Government as per Ext.P2 order. The Government declared Ext.P3 scheme. The petitioner received the compensation as declared by Ext.P3 scheme under protest. Since the petitioner has got only 9 years of service, she was not eligible to get pension and P.F. etc. The Managing Director of the 2nd respondent company, as per Ext.P5, forwarded the request of the employees including the petitioner for deployment. Ext.P5 is the copy of the representation filed before the then Chief WPC 25078/04 -:2:- Minister. As per Ext.P6, the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent company requested the PSC to examine the issue raised by the petitioner and similarly situated employees sympathetically and issue appropriate orders for transferring their services to any other government undertaking. The above request was declined by the PSC as evidenced by Ext.P7, and according to the PSC, it is for the Government to take a decision for transfer of employment. Again as per Ext.P8, the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent company forwarded an application preferred by the petitioner and other employees for transfer of service and informed the Government the stand of the PSC that the matter has to be considered by the Government. It appears that pursuant to Ext.P8 letter, the Principal Secretary to Government issued Ext.P9 letter by which clarification was sought as to whether the employees have accepted the benefits under SSNP. Finally, as per Ext.P11, the Principal Secretary to Government informed the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent company that Ext.P3 scheme provides for much higher WPC 25078/04 -:3:- compensation compared to the I.D.Act. It is also stated that the fact that selection was done through PSC, cannot be a reason for re-deploying employees to other PSUs and accordingly informed that the proposal made by the Managing Director is not admissible. 2. It is also the case of the petitioner that, one Bindumol, whose name mentioned as serial No.1 in Ext.P6 who was also discharged from the 2nd respondent company, got reappointment in the KSEB as evidenced by Ext.P13. It is the case of the petitioner that while the request of the petitioner for re-deployment in any of the Government Company or undertaking is rejected, the PSC had invited application for selection to various government owned companies and Board. According to the petitioner, she had altogether 9 years of service in the 2nd respondent company, but as she had not completed 10 years, she is not entitled to get the pensionary benefit and other monetary benefits which are available to other employees of the erstwhile 2nd respondent company. It is also her case that she had already WPC 25078/04 -:4:- crossed the age limit for making application and selection for fresh appointment. Therefore, she approached this Court by filing the above writ petition and the prayers after the amendment are as follows: “(i) Declare that the petitioner entitled to get her name registered with Kerala Public Service Commission as per Rule 6 of KS & SSR and Rule 17(a) of KPSC of Rules of Procedure. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner to any other Government owned various companies/Corporation/Boards in accordance with her qualification, commanding to grant appropriate seniority to the petitioner in the service together with the monetary benefits such as the salary and allowances from the eligible period of appointment.” 3. PSC had field a counter affidavit in which it is stated that Rule 17 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules WPC 25078/04 -:5:- of Procedure is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as she was not selected for appointment to common post. Therefore, there is no question of reregistration of her name. It is also the case of the PSC that the petitioner was discharged not for want of vacancies in the 2nd respondent company, but due to policy of the Government to wind up the company. 4. From the materials referred above, it appears that the authority is vested with the Government to accommodate her if the Government wants to accommodate the petitioner in any of the public sector undertaking. The Managing Director of the 2nd respondent company through his proceedings requested the Government as well as the PSC to take steps to deploy the petitioner or redeploy the petitioner in any of the Public undertaking. The reason stated by the government in Ext.P11 appears to me not a decision taken after considering the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case and also after considering the grievance of the petitioner. Ext.P11 is only a general order and the same cannot be treated as a speaking order. Therefore, I am of the view that with out WPC 25078/04 -:6:- going into he merits of the case, the petitioner can be relegated to the Ist respondent/Government and directing the government to take a fresh decision upon her request. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Principal Secretary to Industrial Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram along with a copy of this judgment, as early as possible and the Ist respondent is directed to dispose of such representation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation and the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- WPC 25078/04 -:7:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT WPC 25078/04 -:8:- Dated:..