High Court of KeralaOP(KAT)/28/2015dismissed

Narayanan A.K v. State Of Kerala

2015-02-09Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas,Honourable Mr.Justice Antony Dominic6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/20TH MAGHA, 1936 OP(KAT).No.28 of 2015 (Z) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 502/2013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28-08-2014 PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS::

----------------------------------

1. NARAYANAN A.K., AGED 50 YEARS S/O.CHITHRAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AMETTUR KUNNATH MANA VATTANKULAM, EDAPPAL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE NANNAMMUKKU KRISHI BHAVAN, NANNAMMUKKU PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 679 576 NOW WORKING AS DISTRICT MAGAGER, KERAFED, MALAPPURAM.

2. KAREEM P.K., S/O.KUNJUMOIDU, PARAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURITHY PO THRISSUR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE AMBALAPPARA KRISHI BHAVAN, AMBALAPPARA PO PALAKKAD DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE MANNARKKAD PO, PALAKKAD.

3. JASMINE M., W/O.KAREEM P.K., PARAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURITHY PO THRISSUR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ANANGANADI KRISHI BHAVAN, ANANGANADI PO, PALAKKAD KERALA - 679 531 NOW WORKING AS SENIOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FERTILIZER QUALITY CENTRAL LAB, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD.

4. GOPIDAS M.P., S/O.M.M.PARAMESWARAN, MULLANGATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM PO THRISSUR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE SEED DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD PO, THRISSUR KERALA-680 686 NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MATHILAKAM THRISSUR - 680 685.

5. PRASAD MATHEW A.T., S/O.THOMAS A.C., AYKARAKUDIYIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU THRISSUR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VANDAZHI KRISHI BHAVAN VANDAZHI PO, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 680 652 NOW WORKING AS FARM SUPERINTENDENT INTEGRATED SEED FARM, ERUTHEMPATHY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

6. SIVADASAN A.K., S/O.S.S.KRISHNANKUTTY, AATTUPURATH HOUSE, MOORKINIKKARA KUZHUKKULLY PO, THRISSUR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER NENMANNIKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, PALIYEKKARA PO, THRISSUR KERALA - 680 751 NOW WORKING AS SENIOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER CENTRAL ORCHARD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

7. MATHEW OOMMEN, S/O.OOMMEN, PADIKKAMANNIL HOUSE, CHEMBUKKAVU PO THRISSUR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OLLUR KRISHI BHAVAN OLLUR PO, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 306 NOW WORKING AS DISTRICT MANAGER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KERAFED THRISSUR - 680 004.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS::

------------------------------------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 033.

3. SUSHAMA.S., ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR KASARGOD, KERALA - 671 123.

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(KAT).No. 28 of 2015 (Z) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.502/2013 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 TO A20 ON THE FILES OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN O.A.502/2013.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2014 IN O.A.NO.502/2013 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL -------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC & ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.

----------------------------- --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

Antony Dominic, J.

The applicants in O.A.No.502/2013 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners. They filed the O.A challenging Annexure-A20 order issued by the 2nd respondent granting seniority to the 3rd respondent reckoning the period spent by her on leave without allowance also. The petitioners also challenged Annexures-A7 & A8 which are proceedings consequential to Annexure-A20. By Ext.P3, the Tribunal dismissed O.A mainly relying on Annexure-A16 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.24046/2003 and Annexure-A17 judgment in W.A.No.5/2009 and Annexure-A19 order of the Supreme Court passed in S.L.P filed against the judgment in Annexure-A17 judgment. It is this order of the Tribunal which is challenged before us.

We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2.

::2::

We notice that by Annexure-A16 judgment in W.P (C).No.24046/2003, this Court disposed of the said writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent declaring that she shall be entitled to get seniority counting her service from the effective date of advice for appointment, namely, 1.10.1988. This judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Annexure-A17 judgment dismissing W.A.No.5/2009. The appellants in the Writ Appeal sought review of Annexure-A17 judgment by filing R.P.No.693/2003 and the said review petition was dismissed by Annexure-A18 order. The State also filed S.L.P before the Apex Court. That was dismissed by Annexure-A19 by the Apex Court on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

This therefore means that Annexure-A20 order granting seniority to the 3rd respondent was issued by the official respondents in compliance of the aforesaid judgments of this Court. In such a case, even if the petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-A20, they cannot challenge AnnexureA20, but, should seek their reliefs against the judgments pursuant to which the said order was issued. This principle has

::3::

been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran v. Food Corporation of India 1989 2) KLT 112. 5.

It is true that the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments of this Court in W.A.No.359/2011 and O.P(KAT) 4145/2012. But, what we notice is that the 3rd respondent was not a party to the said judgments and therefore, even if these judgments reflected a departure from the view taken in Annexure-A16 judgment, it will not in any manner affect the rights of the 3rd respondent under Annexure-A16 judgment. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the O.A filed by the petitioners.

The O.P(KAT) fails and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

bkn/-