IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 OP.No. 27751 of 2002(D) -------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. LALI GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. SONY GEORGE, POLAKULAM HOUSE, PURAPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI - 685 583. 2. SHINU ANTONY, AGED 32 YEARS (HANDICAPPED), S/O. ANTONY, THANNIPPARAYIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM 686 518 3. JOSE AUGUSTINE, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. JOSE MUNDACKAL HOUSE, RIVER VIEW ROAD, THODUPUZHA - 685 584 4. JOSEPH J., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, VATTAVAYALIL HOUSE, KAPPADU POST, KOTTAYAM - 686 508. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL & REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, PUNNAPURAM, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND REHABITATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER BY SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.ANAND SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP.No. 27751 of 2002(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 6/1/2001. EXT.P2 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD. EXT.P3 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 25/1/2001. EXT.P4 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 25/1/2001. EXT.P5 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 12/3/2001. EXT.P6 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER OF THE IIND PETITIONER DATED 31/5/2002. EXT.P7 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 6/9/2002. EXT.P7(a) : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER RECEIVED BY THE IIND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 30.5.2002. EXT.R2(b) : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 31.5.2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn OP.No. 27751 of 2002(D) -2- ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 47247/2002 IN OP. NO. 27751/2002 DISMISSED 21/01/2011 SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- O.P.No.27751 Of 2002 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T In this Writ Petition, the petitioners who were earlier working with the 2nd respondent-organisation challenges Exhibit P7 order by which they were retrenched from service after offering three months wages in lieu of notice. 2. The facts of the case show that the steps to retrench the employees were taken on the ground that the organisation is overstaffed. Initially, an order was passed after the Committee appointed by Government went into various aspects as per Exhibit P6 which was quashed by this Court in Mallika Rajam v. State of Kerala.2002(3) KLT 77. The main ground on which it was set aside is absence of any notice to the employees. Thereafter the present order has been passed. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the termination is illegal. It is pointed out that at any rate, the petitioners are entitled to be paid salary for the period actually O.P.No.27751/02 -2- they have worked and what is ordered is the retrenchment compensation alone. It is also submitted that others have been paid arrears of salary. 5. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that against 186 notified vacancies, 938 persons were appointed, which required streamlining of the functioning. It is also mentioned that even payment of salary to the employees fell in arrears. The situation actually therefore warranted retrenchment of excess staff. Therefore, Exhibit P7 cannot be said to be illegal. The challenge against the same therefore fails. But, if arrears of salary are yet to be paid to the petitioners, the same will be verified with regard to service particulars of them to find out the actual period they have worked and eligible amounts will be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is dismissed, subject to the above observations. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn