Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Chinnamma T.k – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical non-compliance with judicial mandates by the state. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. inadequacy of policy decisions in satisfying court-mandated obligations. (Para 4 , 5 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. judicial review limits versus state's executive policy prerogatives. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. state responsibility, judicial restraint, and model employer doctrine. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. court's discretion to mold relief and compel adherence to mandates. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.667, 985, 1000, 1051, 1075, 1356, 1522, 1564, 1657, 1659, 1834, 1846, 1907, 2006, 2033, 2616, 2620, 2669, 2726, 2767 of 2025 and 4 of 2026]
Muralee Krishna S., J.
These writ appeals are a classic example of how the state machinery can make a particular class of employees run pillar to post, seeking redressal of their grievance for fixation of pay and other service Conditions, by adopting various delay tactics and bureaucratic laziness, though the incumbents obtained a judgment in their favour from the Division Bench of this Court, as early as on 01.08.2012.
2. For
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
