IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 782 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7389/2008 Dated 04/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------- BALACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.P.NEELAKANDAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, SARASWATHI VILASAM, PANATTUKONAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., TRIVANDRUM. (NOW RESIDING AT SINDOORAM, PANATTUKONAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY SRI.K.K.VIVEKANANDAN SRI.KURIAKOSE G.THEKKEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, TAXES AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, ATTINGAL WAREHOUSE, POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADDL.RESPONDENT: 5. VIMAL KUMAR T., CLERK ASSISTANT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER IN IA 351/08 DT.2.4.08) BY ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI – R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 782 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd April, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was an employee of the Kerala Salicylates and Chemicals Ltd. He was sent on deputation to the 2nd respondent Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd., and he joined there on 5.3.2003. Now, he has completed five years and therefore, by Ext.P3 order dated 12.2.2008, he is sought to be reverted. The writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P3 and also seeking the benefit of Ext.P4 Government order. The said order is one issued by the Government for assisting the persons like the appellant, who are facing termination/retrenchment on the closure of their undertakings, which are public sector undertakings. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant has no right to claim retention in the service of the 2nd respondent. But, the learned Judge directed the Government to consider his claim for the benefit of Ext.P4, if he files a representation within two weeks WA 782/2008 2 from the date of the judgment. To enable the appellant to seek appropriate interim relief from the Government, it was ordered that he shall be allowed to continue in service for a period of three weeks from 4.3.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. We notice that the appellant has not got any legal right to continue in the service of the 2nd respondent beyond the period of deputation, unless there is a decision to that effect by the 2nd respondent or by any other competent authority. On completion of the period of deputation, he has to go back. If the appellant was not sent on deputation and he was continuing in his parent unit, he would have faced retrenchment on the closure of that establishment. The said position cannot be improved for the reason that he was sent on deputation to another company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a direction may be issued to retain him in service till the matter is considered by the Government. The learned Judge thought that the appellant should be given a breathing time to move the Government and seek appropriate interim relief from it. So, the period of three weeks was granted for the same. If the appellant wants extension of time, he has to move the learned Single Judge. The appellate court cannot interfere with such a direction issued by WA 782/2008 3 the learned Judge in his discretion. In the result, no ground has been made out, warranting interference with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/