IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38738 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.PADMAKUMAR, COUNTER CLERK/DEVELOPING ASSISTANT (NOW UNDER TERMINATION), KAIRALI-SREE THREATRE, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THRISSUR, RESIDING AT S.S.BHAVAN, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, CHITRANJALI THEATRE OF THE KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSFDC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38738 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Counter Clerk in a theatre run by the 1st respondent, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He was served with a show cause notice directing him to show cause against a provisional decision to terminate his service based on an enquiry report. The petitioner was terminated from service pursuant to the same. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.28364/2008, in which by Ext.P1 judgment, the impugned orders were quashed and the first respondent was permitted to make a de novo enquiry against the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, an enquiry was conducted and a show cause notice was issued to which he filed a reply. Pursuant to the same, by Ext.P2, the petitioner was reinstated in service by imposing a punishment of barring of increments for three months without cumulative effect for the misconduct of unauthorised absence for a week. Pursuant W.P.(C)No.38738/10 2 to the same, the petitioner reported for duty on 27.12.2010. But he was not allowed to join duty. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to join duty as per Ext.P2; ii) to declare that the petitioner is legally entitled to join duty as per Ext.P2 and that the 3rd respondent is statutorily bound to implement Ext.P2 and allow the petitioner to join duty and that the refusal of the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to join duty is highly illegal and vitiated with violations of the accepted principles of law and that action is to initiated against the 3rd respondent for his illegal refusal to allow the petitioner to join duty aside”. On 28.12.2010, this Court passed the following interim order: “Not admitted. Standing Counsel enters appearance on behalf of respondents. 2. It is noticed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner had culminated in Ext.P2 wherein the 2nd respondent had ordered reinstatement of the petitioner. The said order is dt.23.12.2010. It is evident from Ext.P3 that the petitioner had reported joining on 27.12.2010, but he was not allowed to join. 3. Leaned Standing Counsel had produced for my perusal a “Note' issued by the Managing Director to the 3rd respondent, which reads as follows: 'The Disciplinary orders cited in reference(1) above is kept in abeyance until further orders'. 4. The above said letter does not disclose as to why Ext.P2 is kept in abeyance. It refers to a message of the Chairman dt.27.12.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the due date of retirement of the petitioner is on 31.12.2010 and the attempt of the respondents is to see that the petitioner is not reinstated till his retirement. W.P.(C)No.38738/10 3 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances it is clarified that if ultimately this court finds that the petitioner ought to have been allowed to join duty on 27.12.2010, it will be deemed that the petitioner had continued in service w:e:f: 27.12.2010 onwards and he will be entitled for all consequential benefits as if he had retired while in service. Post on 6.1.2011 for further consideration.” After the interim order the petitioner attained age of superannuation. Today, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that subsequently, the Board of Directors considered the matter and decided to confirm Ext.P2. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the contentions of the petitioner on merits is his contention. But, in view of the interim order, the petitioner must be deemed to have re-joined duty on 27.12.2010. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner, as having been reinstated in service on 27.12.2010 and compute his retirement benefits due to the petitioner and disburse the same on that basis as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.38738/10 4 W.P.(C)No.38738/10 5