IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28438 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- M.RADHAKRISHNAN, ASSISTANT SALESMAN, (UNDER SUSPENSION), QUILON DISTRICT DEPOT, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 28438 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant Sales Man in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation was placed under suspension by Ext.P2 order dated 17-3-2008 passed by the second respondent. The suspension arose out of an article that appeared in the Mathrubhoomi daily in which the petitioner criticized the Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies. After Ext.P2 order placing the petitioner under suspension was issued Ext.P3 memo of charges was issued and served on him. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply praying for leniency. The petitioner submits that an enquiry into the charges levelled against him in Ext.P3 was held and that all that remains to be done wpc:28438 of 2008 2 is the passing of final orders in the matter. The petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that the disciplinary enquiry is over, the respondents have not taken steps to revoke the order of suspension. The petitioner has in this writ petition prayed for a direction to the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings and also to reinstate him in service pending such finalization. Smt.Moly Jacob, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that though the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner has been completed, the disciplinary authority is yet to take a final decision in the matter and that the order of suspension was not reviewed since the petitioner did not make a written request in that regard. 2. Suspension pending enquiry is intended to keep wpc:28438 of 2008 3 the employee away from office so as to prevent the witness from being influenced and records being tampered with. Since the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is complete and all that remains to be done is the passing of final orders in the disciplinary action, I find no justification on the part of the respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension. In these state of affairs, I direct that if the petitioner moves the second respondent by filing an appropriate representation within ten days from today, the second respondent shall consider the same and take a decision thereon within another two weeks thereafter, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. I also direct the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner at the earliest and in any case within two months from today. wpc:28438 of 2008 4 The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps wpc:28438 of 2008 5 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J WPC: 3959 OF 2008 Dated this 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.K.P.Rajesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Ashok Cherian learned standing counsel for Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Board for short). The petitioner is a casual sweeper in the service of the Board. He claims wpc:28438 of 2008 6 regularization in the light of Ext.P5 G.O.dated 25-11- 2005. He also relies Ext.P6 order dated 17-7- 2007 passed by the Board regularizing the services of this part time casual sweepers. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending the inter alia that Ext.P5 Government order does not comply to the board and that in view of accepting R1 special rules services of the petitioner can be regularized. The learned counsel for the petritioner submits that pursuing to the directions by this court in O.P.No.16734 of 1998 services of persons working on contract basis as part time sweepers/ were regularised by Ext.P6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also similarly situated as the said six persons. Having that situation learned counsel for the board submitted that in the event of the petitioner’s filing representation before the Secretary of the board producing a copy of Ext.P6, the board will consider the same and take a decision thereon at the earliest. The writ petition is wpc:28438 of 2008 7 therefore disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the secretary of the board claiming regularization. It shall be done within two weeks from today. The secretary of the Board shall on receipt of the said representation consider the same and take a decision thereon, if necessary, after placing it before the Board. The secretary/Board shall consider Ext.P6 also while taking a decision on the petitioners representation. Final orders in the matter shall be placed within three months from the date of which the petitioner moves the secretary as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, wpc:28438 of 2008 8 JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J WPC: 29288 OF 2008 Dated this 7th day of October, 2008 wpc:28438 of 2008 9 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Aravindhakshan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Anil learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board. 2.The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. As he has not passed the departmental test his probation in the category of Assistant Enginner has not so far be declared. For that reason petitioner has not been sanctioned the second increment in view of the provision contained in Rule 37B(b) of part 1 KSR. 3.By order dated 12-8-2007 pay and allowance of the office of the board was revised with effect from 1-7- 2003 with the concurrence of the State Government. As per the said Board order officers were not completed probation are not entitled to have thereon pay fixed in the revised scale counting the increments agreed but wpc:28438 of 2008 10 withholding in view of 37B(b) of part (i) KSR. However according to the petitioner in the case of state government employees, the government have permitted such officers also to have their pay fixed in the revised pay scale notinally concurring the increments withholding in relaxation of Rule 37 B(b) part I of KSR. The petitioner submits the claims similar relaxation. He has submitted Ext.P2 and P3 representation before the Secretary of the Board and that those representations have been forwarded by the Executive Engineer along with Ext.P1 letter. The petitioner has in the writ petition prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 and P3 and pass order within a time limit ordered by this Court. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submits Ext.P2 and P3 representations have been received by the Secretary of the Board and that decision will be taken thereon at the earliest and in any case within three months from today. In the light of the said submission wpc:28438 of 2008 11 no further orders are necessary to direct that orders on Ext.P2 and P3 shall be passed within the said period of three months. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE wpc:28438 of 2008 12 P.N.RAVINDRAN, WPC29026 OF 2008 DATED this 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Kazhakam in wpc:28438 of 2008 13 Sri.Njangateeri Bhagavathy Temple. By Ext.P1 his share in the vazhipadu revenue was reduced as agreed by Ext.P1 order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Charitable Administration Department. Petitioner is filed Ext.P2 review petition before the State Government under Section 99 of the Hindu Religious Charitable Act 951 alongwith Ext.P3 stay petition. Petitioners grievance is that while the said appeal in the said petition pending the Executive Officer has implemented Ext.P1 and called upon excess share vazhipadu income in twenty equal monthly instalments. The petitioner submits that if pending the writ petition Ext.P4 is maintainable. Petitioner will suffer injury loss with the reliefs available to him. Petitioner submits that in these circumstances the first respondent may be directed to consider and pass order Ext.P2 appeal and take a decision thereon after affording an opportunity being heard. I have heard Smt. Learned government wpc:28438 of 2008 14 pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. P.Suresh learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. Ext.P1 order passed by the Commissioner under Sec.99 of the Hindu charitable Religious Act 951 entitles the petitioner to the State Government to revise the said order since the petitioner is invoked the remedy available to him under Sec.99 of the Act, and as the appeal was filed it is only appropriate that the said revision petition is considered and disposed at the earliest. Sec.99 (2) of the Act says that the state government may say execution of departmental order pending disposal of the revision petition. In the state of affairs I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The Secretary to Government Revenue (Devaswom) shall consider Ext.P2 and P3 say petition and take a decision thereon within two weeks from today till such time the wpc:28438 of 2008 15 operation of Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The Secretary Revenue Devaswom department shall consider and pass order on Ext.P2 appeal after hearing the petitioner and other persons after notice to afford the petitioner and the respondents Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P2 revision petition within three months from today. wpc:28438 of 2008 16 13-10-2008 The petitioner presently working as Assistant Executive Enginner in the Kerala Water Authority had earlier filed WP(C) No.18286 of 2008 claiming that he was intitled as promoted as an Assistant Enginner then passed are designating Assistant Executive Enginner in the vacancies that in 1984. According to the petitioner he was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 22- 8-200 by Ext.P4 judgment till 18-6-2008 this Court directed the Kerala Water Authority and take a decision on the petitioners request within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners is now be informed by the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority that by Ext.P5 letter dated 13-8-2008 he has been given the promotion that was entitled to in the quota reserves for tempo holders and that his claim for retrospective permission is merits. However, wpc:28438 of 2008 17 Ext.P5 further states that the issue raised by the petitioners has been referred to the Government for verification and the final orders will be passed on receipt of a reply from the Government. I have heard Ext.P5 states that a copy of Ext.P4 judgment was received by the Kerala Water Authority on 30-6-2008. It is seen from Ext.P5 that the decision taken by the Kerala Water Authrity is only an interim decision and that final orders will be passed after the Government gives a reply on the clarification sought by the Kerala Water Authority. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State Government of Kerla submits that the state government will be furnished a reply to the Kerala Water Authroty at the earliest and that it is for the kerala Water Authority to take a decision as directed by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. It is seen Ext.P5 that what stands in the way of Kerala Water Authority from taking a final decision in the matter is for want of clarification to the writ wpc:28438 of 2008 18 petition with a direction to the second respondent to furnish a reply to the clarifications of Kerala Water Authrity in the matter of promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer at the earliest and in any case within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority shall within one month after above final orders in the matter. The writ petition is therefore disposed of as above.