IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 624 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18387/2003 Dated 16/11/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13 & 14 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.S.SREEKUMAR, VETERINARY OFFICER (CMP) KOLLAM DAIRY, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM. NOW WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER, P & I OFFICE, MANNAR. 2. DR.SREEKALA V., VETERINARY OFFICER(CMP) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY, POONTHURA P.O NOW WORKING AS A VETERINARY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DIARY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. DR.SATHEESH K.N., MANAGER (P & I), NOW WORKING AS ASST.MANAGER, HRD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIARY, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR.P.MURALI, VETERINARY OFFICER (CMP) P & I SUB UNIT, ALAPPUZHA. 5. DR.GEE GEORGE, VETERINARY OFFICER (P&I) ALAPPUZHA NOW WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DIARY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. DR.VENUGOPAL V.S., VETERINARY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. DR.SHIBU SHANKAR, VETERINARY OFFICER (P&I), THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM, NOW WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER T.R.C.M.P.U. LTD. HEAD OFFICE, PATTOM. 8. DR.RAJKUMAR SAMUEL, VETERINARY OFFICER (P & I) PATHANAMTHITTA. NOW WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER KOLLAM DIARY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (REGISTRAR) PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R3 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.624 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 18th March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are some of the writ petitioners. They are Veterinary Doctors working under the third respondent. When the third respondent discontinued the payment of non- practising allowance to them, they approached this Court and as per the direction of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the Government considered the matter and issued Ext.P6 order, directing that the non-practising allowance could be withdrawn, if only there is a change in the nature of duty, or the incumbents concerned are promoted to higher posts. In the light of that, the third respondent took the consequential decision, Ext.P8. Challenging Ext.P8 and praying for restoration of non-practising allowance, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. At the time of hearing of the Writ Petition, we notice that only one contention was pressed by the writ petitioners. They submitted that the nature of their duty has not changed and therefore, the discontinuance of non-practising allowance was unjustified. Since it was a dispute between a Cooperative Society and its employees, the learned Single Judge WA NO.624/08 2 directed the writ petitioners to move the 4th respondent, Director of Dairy Development, who is vested with the powers of the Registrar, under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We notice that Ext.P6 order was not specifically challenged in the Writ Petition, though some grounds, attacking the same have been pleaded. As long as Ext.P6 remains in force, there is nothing wrong with Ext.P8, which is only a consequential decision taken by the 4th respondent. Further, even assuming Ext.P6 was under challenge in the Writ Petition, only one point was canvassed before the learned Single Judge and the learned Judge dealt with it appropriately. The point canvassed, being a disputed question, the appellants were directed to move the officer, exercising the powers of the Registrar. So, we find no reason to interfere with the said direction in the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs WA NO.624/08 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.624 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 18th March, 2010.