High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-11-17Partly Allowed (as per the operative directions...

AMMINI AMMA M.P. v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY & THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.22979 of 2012 (V)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2015-11-17
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed to the extent of directing seniority to be fixed from 07.05.1986 and no arrears, with a notional promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer for seniority purposes within three months; however, no arrears of salary are payable and costs are denied.
Final Disposition: Partly Allowed (as per the operative directions granting notional promotion and seniority with no arrears, within three months)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ammini Amma M.P.

Respondents

Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority
Kerala Public Service Commission

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P.R. Venketes h
• Sri P.C. Chacko (Parathanam)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri George Mathew
• Sri P.C. Sasidharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Ammini Amma M.P., was appointed as Draftsman Grade II in 1986 by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) through an Employment Exchange and served until 1989, with a maternity‑leave–related break and a retroactive termination once PSC appointments were made. She challenged this sequence, and after initial dismissal and an appeal, the Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority to hold that employees appointed through Employment Exchange between 1 April 1984 and 4 August 1986 were entitled to reinstatement and regularisation. The petitioner was reinstated, and later proceedings sought to quash an order denying certain consequential relief. The court noted that although promotions had been denied during the period she was out of service, the earlier judgment directed all consequential benefits be granted, and therefore her service should be regularised from 07.05.1986 with seniority notionally fixed. In a subsequent directive, the court ordered the Authority to assign seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer as on the date when the next junior would have been promoted and to accord a notional promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, within three months. The order also clarified that no arrears would be payable, and costs were denied. The petition is thus allowed to the extent described herein.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that, despite protracted litigation in her favour, she has not received the fruits of orders directing regularisation from the date of initial appointment and appropriate promotions. She relies on Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority (1990) to assert that employees appointed via Employment Exchange within the relevant period are entitled to reinstatement, regularisation, and consequential benefits. She seeks not arrears but seniority and a notionally granted promotion, calculating seniority from 07.05.1986 and extending to the next junior’s promotion date, with remedy within three months.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents challenge retroactive relief by arguing that the earlier orders must be interpreted in light of established service rules and do not automatically compel arrears or actual promotions. They contend that any promotion or seniority adjustments must follow the prescribed departmental processes and should not contravene PSC/ KWA regulations. The respondents emphasize that the relief granted must be bounded by the limits of the original orders and the legal framework governing regularisation and seniority.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority	1990 (2) KLT 673	Positive	Relied upon by the Division Bench to grant reinstatement and regularisation for those appointed through Employment Exchange in the relevant period.
WA 1186 of 1995	WA 1186/1995	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P1 judgment is referenced as part of the record; used as background materials showing prior outcomes but not directly analyzed in the present decision.
CC 168 of 1997	CC 168/1997	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P4 cited; no detailed treatment in the present order.
OP 4179 of 1998	OP 4179/1998	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P11 cited; used as reference without active adjudication in the current decision.
WPC 30557/2007	WPC 30557/2007	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P14 cited; not actively treated in the current judgment beyond reference.
COC 684/2011	COC 684/2011	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P25 cited; background reference rather than direct treatment in the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against AMMINI AMMA M.P. v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY & THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938 ## W.P.(C).No.22979 of 2012 (V) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- -------------------------- AMMINI AMMA M.P., ASST. ENGINEER, KWA QUARTERS, OPP. PARVATHY MILLS, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.C.CHACKO (PARATHANAM). RESPONDENT(S):- ---------------------------- ## 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, - KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.GEORGE MATHEW. R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2016, ALONG WITH CONT. CASE (C) NO.1159 OF 2016-S, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- ## W.P.(C).No.22979 OF 2012-V ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:- -------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1186 OF 1995 DATED 9-8-1996 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KWA/JB/E1/17794/96 DATED 2-1-1997 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KWA/JB/E1/17794/96 DATED 8-4-1997 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 168 OF 1997 DATED 30-6-1997 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 11-9-1997 BY THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.KEA/JB/E1-17794/96 DATED 10-2-1998. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF AE DEPARTMENT. - EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KWA/HO/17107/E4/86 DATED 22-12-1986 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12-8-1997 OF THE RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.27117/B3/97/IRD OF THE RESPONDENT DT.11.12.97. - EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4-10-2006 IN OP 4179 OF 1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-11-2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-7-2007 DECLINING THE BENEFIT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9-2-2011 IN WPC NO.30557/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. W.P.(C).NO.22979 OF 2012-V **- 2 -** - EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-8-2011 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3-8-2011 ADDRESSED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 6-8-2011 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22-9-2011. - EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPLY ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. - EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 11-2-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER. - EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 12-3-2012 TO THE PETITIONER. - EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26-4-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. - EXHIBIT P23: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29-5-2012 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE PSC. - EXHIBIT P24: TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NOTIFYING THE VACANCIES IN CATEGORY NO.194/92 DATED 29-12-1992. - EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN COC 684/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- ---------------------------------------- NIL. Vku/ [true copy] ## K. Vinod Chandran, J ------------------------------------------- ## W.P.(C).No.22979 of 2012-V ------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of November, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that despite long litigation, all of which ended in her favour, she has been denied the fruits of such orders, which essentially should have resulted in her services being regularised from the date of her initial appointment and she being entitled to promotions after the essential required duration in the lower post. 2. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as Draftsman Grade II, for broken periods of service of 179 days and her appointment was through and sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner was appointed on 07.05.1986 as Draftsman Grade II and continued till 10.12.1989, with artificial break of service, when she took Maternity Leave. During the course of her Maternity Leave, she was terminated from service by order dated 25.01.1990; WP(C).No.22979 of 2012 - 2 - with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the Maternity Leave, since by that time the appointments under the respondent-Kerala Water Authority [for brevity “Authority”] had been given to the Kerala Public Service Commission [for brevity “PSC”] and a candidate advised by the PSC joined the post. 3. The petitioner filed a writ petition, seeking continuance, which was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed, which was allowed as per Exhibit P1 judgment. Before the Division Bench, the petitioner claimed benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority**_ **[1990 (2) KLT 673].** The Division Bench having considered the rival contentions, found that the petitioner being appointed between 1[st] April, 1984 and 4[th] August, 1986, that too through Employment Exchange, was entitled to reinstatement back to the service and regularisation, as declared in _**Jacob's case**_ ( _supra_ ). The Division Bench, by Exhibit P1 judgment, hence, directed reinstatement of the petitioner back to service and also directed all consequential reliefs, including regularisation of WP(C).No.22979 of 2012 - 3 - service to be granted. 4. The petitioner was admittedly reinstated in service. The subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by Exhibit P14. The petitioner in the said writ petition had sought for quashing of an order which had declined her all consequential reliefs, viz., Maternity Leave salary, arrears of salary for the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service, regularisation from 07.05.1986 and also to reckon the prior service and her qualification for the purpose of considering the claim for promotion under the Departmental Quota. The writ petition, in fact, was allowed, quashing the order issued by the respondent, on the representation of the petitioner. 5. Admittedly the petitioner had been paid the entire service benefits and her services were regularised with effect from 07.05.1986, her date of initial appointment. However, the respondent-Authority declined the promotion with retrospective effect, upon which a contempt was filed. In the judgment in the contempt case, the learned Single Judge who passed Exhibit P14 judgment, left open the remedy of - 4 - WP(C).No.22979 of 2012 the petitioner to challenge the order by which the claim of promotion was denied. 6. It is to be noticed that the order passed _inter alia_ declining promotion, was already set aside in the earlier judgment. In any event, since the question has been left open, the same has to be considered in the context of Exhibit P1 judgment. Even going by Exhibit P1 judgment, the petitioner was directed to be granted all consequential benefits. The petitioner having been re-appointed from 14.01.1997, had her services regularised from her initial date of appointment on 07.05.1986. The specific contention of the petitioner is that, she had been declined promotions when persons working with her and who joined after her, during the period when she was kept of service, have been promoted above the petitioner. Exhibit P1 having attained finality, since the Special Leave Petition is also said to be dismissed, the petitioner is entitled to such prayer; but, however, notionally. 7. In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent-Authority to assign seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Engineer on the date WP(C).No.22979 of 2012 - 5 - on which her next junior was promoted, assigning her date of first entry into service as 07.05.1986. Now the petitioner is said to be working as Assistant Executive Engineer. So, her promotion in the category of Assistant Executive Engineer also be notionally assigned in the said cadre on the date on which her next junior in the cadre of Assistant Engineer would have been promoted. The same shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary; but, however, the benefits of seniority should be given with full effect. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs. **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]