IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 20 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.16440/2010 IN WPC.9377/2008 Dated 03/12/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-695001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CIRCLE OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------ K.J.PHILIP @ K.A.PHILIP, S/O.ULAHANNAN, KATTAKKAL HOUSE, NERYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE JACOB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 20 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by an order dated 3rd December, 2010 in I.A.No.16440 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.9377 of 2008, the respondents therein preferred the present writ appeal. 2. The sole respondent herein is the writ petitioner. He secured employment under the first appellant some time in the year 1970. Some three decades after his entry into service, on the basis of a complaint that the respondent secured the above mentioned employment by playing fraud on the appellants, an enquiry was initiated against the respondent. Such an enquiry ended in a finding that the respondent is guilty of fraud in securing the employment. Therefore an order purporting to be an order recalling the appointment of the respondent with a further direction to recover the salary and other allowances was passed by the first appellant. 3. Aggrieved by the same the respondent herein approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the order under appeal came to be passed in the above mentioned application which directed the appellants to pay the provident fund amount due to the respondent/writ petitioner within a period of one W.A. No.20 of 2011 - 2 - month. Hence the appeal by the employer. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants argued on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 708) that once it is established that the initial appointment itself is secured by the employee by playing fraud on the employer there would be no equity in favour of the employee which enabled the employee to receive any amount from the employer. 5. We do not wish to record any conclusive finding in this appeal against an interlocutory order as the same is likely to have an effect on the result of the writ petition one way or the other. But we indicate that the above relied decision is distinguishable on the ground that the dispute in the above mentioned decision is regarding the service of an employee under the State. The question was whether he was entitled for any protection arising under Section 311 of the Constitution. The question of protection under Article 311 of the Constitution does not arise in the context of the case on hand because the first appellant is only a statutory Board. 6. We may also indicate that under Section 10 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 there is a prohibition in any attachment, assignment or charge on the provident fund amount of any employee to whom the Act applies. W.A. No.20 of 2011 - 3 - 7. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. We make it clear that the question may still have to be considered at the time of hearing of the writ petition and in the event of the issue being decided in favour of the employer, the employer would be at liberty to recover the amount paid pursuant to the order under appeal. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns