Rasheeda Beevi v. Kerala State Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/29TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 28575 of 2012 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- RASHEEDA BEEVI, AGED 56 YEARS STENO GRAPHER, W/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, KERALA STATE DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KALAVOOR ALAPPUZHA 688522
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VS
WP(C).No. 28575 of 2012 (V) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
---------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 8.9.1982 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 5.6.1989 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE G.O.P.NO.479/1986 FIN. DATED 11.7.1986 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE G.O.P.NO.281/1989(256)FIN. DATED 6.6.1989 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.6.1989 EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.7.1994 EXT.P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.6.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES EXT.P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.12.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER EXT.P9 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PRIVATE SECRETARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER EXT.P10 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 21.3.2012 EXT.P11 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 4.9.2012 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL ------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims reckoning of her prior service from 13.09.1982 to 05.06.1989, in the first respondent Company, which is a wholly owned Government company, wherein the provisions of Kerala Service Rules are adopted.
2. The petitioner contends that she had been provisionally appointed as a Stenographer on 13.09.1982 and was continued for about 7 years till 05.06.1989, when she was regularised. The petitioner also contends that for granting increments, she is entitled to have reckoned, the provisional service, as is indicated in Exts.P3 and P4. The petitioner's claim was rejected as per Ext.P11 which is impugned here.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader and also the Standing Counsel representing the first
respondent.
4. The first respondent has a contention that the petitioner had not been continued provisionally, in the first respondent Company and had been continued only on the strength of an interim order passed in a writ petition, by this Court. Though the specific number of the writ petition is not stated, there is no reply and hence no controvertion of such averment, placed on record by the first respondent.
5. If that be so, the petitioner's appointment cannot be said to be under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. The petitioner admittedly was appointed on a consolidated pay and her continuance on the strength of an interim order of this Court was also on such consolidated pay. The petitioner's appointment on 05.06.1989 was by way of regular recruitment and there was no regularisation of the earlier period of engagement.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. P.K.Satheesan reported in 2005(3)KLJ 539
considered the effect of deletion of decision No.2 under Rules 33 Part I of Kerala Service Rules. The Division Bench found that the same having been deleted with effect from 01.10.1994, there is no provision in the statute for considering the provisional service as officiating service. The clear finding of the Division Bench was that at the time when an employee claims for reckoning the service, the provision should have been available. Admittedly, the petitioner claimed for reckoning such service only later, by way of Ext.P7 in the year 2011, when the said provision was no longer available in the Rules.
7. Further in Satyapalan v. Deputy Director of Education reported in 1998 (1) KLR 399 this Court speaking on decision No.2 Rule 33 of the Kerala Service Rules, found that two conditions are to be satisfied for such reckoning of service. One is that the provisional service should have been regularised and two that the provisional service should be followed by a regular appointment in the same category. Though in the present case, the second condition is satisfied, there is no
regularisation effected of the earlier service. The earlier service as has been indicated as above was on a consolidated pay and had been only on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court.
The writ petition hence would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE vs