Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 001 – Appellant
Versus
SANTHOSH T.A S/O. AUGUSTHY, THEVARKUNNEL HOUSE, THUNDANGANAD P.O., THODUPUZHA,PIN-685 587,IDUKKI DISTRICT – Respondent
WA NO. 1455 OF 2020 | WP(C) NO.9486 OF 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.P. HARISH
For the Respondents: S.SREEKUMAR (SR.), THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, MANJUNATH MENON, R.GITHESH, HARIKRISHNAN S., P.PRIJITH

Appointment clarity under statutory provisions requires that benefits apply only to those in regular service at the time of the order, not those in additional charge.

Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Intra-Court Appeal - Writ of mandamus - Remuneration under POCSO Act - Appeal raises issues regarding the entitlement for salary as fixed under the Government order for special prosecutors. (Para 1, 4, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Respondent, a Special Public Prosecutor under the POCSO Act, claimed salary for the period of service against termination. The learned Single Judge granted the salary based on a government order stating that all special prosecutors are entitled to ₹60,000/- monthly salary from the date of appointment.

Findings of Court:
The respondent's claim is based on being in service on the date of the order; however, his tenure had expired before the date of the Government order.

Issues: The key issues concern whether the respondent is entitled to benefits outlined in the Government order being on additional charge instead of on contractual appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that entitlement for benefits is only for regular appointments and that the respondent was relieved according to the parameters laid out within the government order.

Result: Writ appeal allowed, learned Single Judge's judgment set aside.

Table of Content
1. discussion of background and appointment details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments surrounding entitlement for salary under government provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's findings and final ruling on the appeal. (Para 9 , 10)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 09.10.2019 passed in WP(C) No.9486 of 2019 as well as the order dated 23.07.2020 in R.P No.423 of 2020.

2. The appellants herein were respondents 1 to 3 and the respondent herein was the petitioner in the writ petition.

3. The respondent herein had filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the salary of the petitioner from 10-11-2016 to 24-11-2018 as fixed in Exhibit P11, while the petitioner was working as Special Public Prosecutor under the POCSO Act of First Additional District and Sessions Court, Thodupuzha within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction compelling respondents 2 and 3 to dispose of Exhibits. P13 and P14 representations, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner;

iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit while considering the peculiar circumstances of the case.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor-I at Thodupuzha District and Sessions Court for a period of three years. On 13.01.2016, the respondent was given additional charge of Special Public Prosecutor in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-I for conducting prosecution in POCSO courts. The appointment made on 06.07.2013 was renewed on 29.02.2016, and the respondent was re-appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor-I for three years with effect from 12.07.2016. The service of the respondent as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor-I was terminated on 09.11.2016. Being aggrieved, the respondent challenged the same in WP(C) No.21469 of 2016. The writ petition came to be decided on 26.09.2016 and it was declared that the service of the respondent as Special Public Prosecutor under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’) cannot be terminated.

5. The appellant-State challenged the judgment passed in the writ petition in W.A No.2264 of 2016. The writ appeal was allowed with liberty to the appellants to appoint duly qualified Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act exclusively. However, it also observed that the respondent shall continue only as Special Public Prosecutor under the POCSO Act till fresh appointments are made to the said post by the State Government. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed SLP(C) No.2919 of 2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2017. Thereafter, the respondent filed R.P No.260 of 2017 before this Court which was also dismissed on 05.04.2017, and he was allowed to continue till fresh appointments are made. Ultimately, the respondent was relieved from duty on 24.11.2018. Thereafter he filed W.P.(C) No.9486 of 2019 seeking disbursement of salary as fixed vide Government Order dated 24.11.2018 (Ext.P11). The relevant extract of the said Government Order is reproduced below:

i) Special Prosecutors appointed in Courts constituted to try and decide cases under N.D.P.S./ S.C./S.T./POSCO/ABARI Laws will be getting a salary of Rs. 60,000/- (consolidated) per month.

ii) Those who are already appointed in the above posts and continuing in the posts as of now; will get the benefit of this order from the date of their appointments.

iii) Special Prosecutors now working in the N.D.P.S./Abkari Courts;

their des

Click Here to Read the rest of this document