Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
Binoy Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38694 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.Unnikrishnan
For the Respondents: Deepu Thankan
An administrative order rejecting regularisation is unsustainable if the authority fails to comply with specific judicial directions regarding the procedure for verifying service records and granting the employee an opportunity to inspect official registers.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularisation of Provisional Employees - Compliance with Judicial Directions - Where a court has mandated a specific procedure for verifying service records (including access to Service Books, Attendance Registers, and payment vouchers) to determine eligibility for regularisation, the authority's failure to provide such access or consider the documents produced by the employee renders the resulting rejection order legally unsustainable. (Para 8)
(B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Directing a competent authority to adhere strictly to conditions set in a previous judgment is mandatory; failure to grant the petitioner an opportunity to verify records in the possession of the respondent constitutes a violation of the court's directions and the principles of fair play. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's regularisation was passed in consonance with the specific directions issued by the Court in the previous round of litigation.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation by which the request of the petitioner for cancellation of regularisation and for reinstating him in service was rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as Driver on 21.11.1994 as a provisional hand. His service was regularised and he was regularly appointed as Driver (Grade II) with effect from 22.12.2011 in terms of Ext.P2 order. The petitioner asserts that regularisation was ordered in respect of those employees who had put in eight years of service with not less than 120 duties per year. Later, on the basis of the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, the Government came out with an order dated 26.3.2018 wherein it has been stated that employees with ten years of service and 120 duties could be regularised. The petitioner states that immediately thereafter, by order dated 02.05.2018, the regularisation granted to about 141 employees were cancelled. Being aggrieved, the petitioner along with others approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.16405 of 2018, and this Court granted an interim order, and the petitioner and others were permitted to continue in the respective post. Later, the writ petitions were all disposed of by a common judgment dated 16.8.2022, and directions were issued to reconsider the matter. The petitioner states that without complying with the directions issued by this Court and without affording him an opportunity of being heard, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass an order holding that the petitioner and others were not able to produce any records to substantiate that he had rendered 120 duties per year during ten years upto 22.2.2011. The petitioner asserts that this Court had directed the respondents to furnish to the petitioner and others the documents which are in the exclusive possession of the respondents to prove their service. The respondents have taken a stand that they are not in possession of records showing the provisional service of the petitioner. The petitioner would refer to Ext.P6 to P11 documents to substantiate that the above documents would apply show that the petitioner had more than 120 duties per year for more than 11 years upto 22.12.2011. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order cannot therefore, be sustained under law.
3. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 and for further direction to the respondents to restore the position of the petitioner to what he was holding at the time of issuance of Ext.P1 order.
4. I have heard the submissions of Sri.N Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. I find that the impugned order was passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16405 of 2018 and connected cases. The aforementioned writ petitions were filed by employees of the Corporation challenging their termination, contending that they have served the corporation for years together and have acquired the right for regularisation in service.
6. After considering the contentions of the contesting parties, this Court disposed of the matter, ordering the consideration of the grievances, and the manner in which it had to be done was also outlined. For clarity, the specific directions issued by this Court while disposing of the matter are extracted below for convenience:
(a) The impugned orders of the KSRTC, terminating the services of the petitioners, are hereby set aside.
(b) The competent Authority of the KSRTC is directed to intimate the petitioners and to afford them specific dates for hearing, on which day they will be entit
