High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-06-04Dismissed

C. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 14811 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date: 2024-06-04
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C. Ramachandran

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Tourism Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director, Tourism, Government of Kerala
The District Tourism Promotion Council, represented by its Secretary
The Chairman, The District Tourism Promotion Council, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George A. Cherian Alexy Augustine (Adv)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Bijoy Chandran, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns the dismissal and subsequent re-employment of C. Ramachandran, a boat driver with the District Tourism Promotion Council since 1989. After a 2001 suspension pending enquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, seeking reinstatement with back pay and restoration of seniority for the period of lay-off. The court earlier directed the Executive Committee to re-consider the punishment, and in 2008 the Committee offered re-employment on humanitarian grounds, but with a condition that the petitioner shall not be eligible for any service benefits for the period of dismissal; the petitioner signed Ext.P5 undertaking. The petitioner later argued that he did not know the contents of the undertaking and claimed salary and seniority for the period of dismissal, also approaching the Human Rights Commission; the Commission ordered benefits, but the High Court set aside that order in W.P.(C) No.11837 of 2021. The petitioner sought a declaration that Ext.P4’s conditions are arbitrary and asked the respondents to sanction and disburse service benefits for the period of dismissal and reckon it for all purposes. The Court rejected these arguments, noting the appointment was humanitarian, the undertaking was given long ago, and the belated challenge is untenable. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inequality of bargaining power
Humanitarian/compassionate grounds for re-employment

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that forcing re-employment on terms denying salary and service benefits for the period of dismissal violates the employee’s rights and reflects unequal bargaining power. He relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly to argue that the employee had no real option but to accept waivers. The undertaking of Ext.P5, signed long after the dismissal, was given without full awareness of its consequences, rendering the arrangement unfair. Despite Ext.P4’s humanitarian basis, the petitioner seeks reinstatement with back wages and full seniority and contends that the prior directions for reconsideration ought to be respected and implemented in favor of restoring his service benefits.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue there was no bargaining inequality; re-employment was a compassionate, discretionary act, not a right, undertaken on humanitarian grounds to mitigate losses. The condition barring salary and service benefits for the period of dismissal was explicitly accepted by the petitioner as a precondition for re-employment. The undertaking, though signed in English, reflects his understanding of the terms, and belated attempts to challenge the arrangement are untenable. The HR Commission’s order directing benefits was set aside earlier by this Court, and Ext.P4 was a carefully reasoned settlement that should bind the petitioner, who was aware of the terms and accepted them without coercion at the time of re-employment.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another	AIR 1986 SC 1571	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner to illustrate inequality of bargaining power; the court uses it as background, but does not adopt its holding in this case.
W.P.(C) No.11837 of 2021	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced as the earlier decision where the HR Commission order was set aside; used for background context.
W.P.(C) No. 10204/2002, 10309/2002 and 10430/2002	—	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P3 refers to a common judgment in these writ petitions; cited for contextual background.

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 C. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and others 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 SATHISH NINAN** **TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 14811 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **C. RAMACHANDRAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O. CHITHANPULLAN, BOAT DRIVER, DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, NEAR K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, KOLLAM-691 001, RESIDING AT KULANGARA THODIYIL, NADUVATHUCHERY, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O, KOLLAM-691 584 BY ADV B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 THE DIRECTOR, TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PARK VIEW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033** - **3 THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEAR K.S.R.T.C STAND, KOLLAM-691 001** - **4 THE CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, NEAR K.S.R.T.C STAND, KOLLAM-691 001, (THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O, KOLLAM-691 013)** **BY ADVS. GEORGE A.CHERIAN ALEXY AUGUSTINE(K/1748/1999)** **SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR.GP.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** - **04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4[th] day of June, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was a Boat Driver under the District Tourism and Promotion Council since 01.09.1989. As per Ext.P2 order dated 12.10.2001, he was suspended pending enquiry. On being found guilty in the enquiry, he was dismissed from the service. 2. Challenging the dismissal and seeking reinstatement, the petitioner approached this Court in a writ petition. This Court as per Ext.P3 judgment directed that the Executive Committee may consider the petitioner's request with regard to the punishment imposed and pass appropriate orders. 3. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P4 order was passed by the committee, deciding to reappoint the petitioner W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 2 :- subject to the condition that, he shall not be eligible for any service benefits for the period under dismissal and that, an undertaking in a Rupees fifty stamp paper is to be submitted agreeing that he will not be eligible for any service benefits for the period of dismissal. Ext.P5 is such undertaking given by the petitioner. 4. Subsequently the petitioner gave a representation to the Chairman of the Council stating that he was not aware of the contents of the undertaking and that, he is entitled for salary and seniority during the period he was kept out of service. He also approached the Human Rights Commission with a complaint in the said regard. The Human Rights Commission passed Ext.P7 order directing grant of all benefits. On challenge by the Council, the said order was set aside by this Court in W.P.(c)No.11837 of 2021. It is W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 3 :- thereafter that the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition, seeking for a declaration that the conditions imposed in Ext.P4 dis-entitling the petitioner for the service benefits for the period under dismissal are arbitrary, and for a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse the service benefits for the said period and to reckon the said period as duty for all purposes. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the counter affidavit placed on record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in _Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another [AIR 1986 SC 1571]_ and contend that there is W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 4 :- inequality of bargaining power between the petitioner and the respondents, and that the petitioner had no other option but to succumb to the demand of the respondents for re-appointment on waiving the right for salary and service benefits during the period of dismissal. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would point out that, there was no occasion for any bargaining between the petitioner and the respondents. It was out of the sheer compassion that the respondents took a decision to re-employ the petitioner. It was on a specific condition that no claims will be made with regard to the period of dismissal. The respondent is right in the contention that, the petitioner who stood dismissed from service was re-employed not as of right but on compassionate grounds. There was no occasion for any bargain. After W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 5 :- having agreed to the terms and having taken benefit thereunder, the petitioner cannot retract therefrom. 7. It is a contention that the petitioner was unaware of the contents of Ext.P5 undertaking given by him, since it was in English and the petitioner is illiterate. Straight away it is to be noted that, the said contention does not go along with the plea of unequal bargaining power urged earlier. At any rate, the petitioner was aware of his dismissal from service. It is pursuant to the direction of this Court in O.P.No.10204 of 2002 referred to supra that the Executive Committee heard the petitioner and considered the issue. Ext.P4 communication of the respondents to the petitioner intimating him of their willingness to re-appoint the petitioner specifying the terms and conditions for appointment was in English. The W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 6 :- petitioner understood the same to be the expression of the willingness of the respondents to re-employ the petitioner in service. The petitioner could understand the said part of Ext.P4 order. There is no reason why the petitioner would not have been aware of the conditions mentioned therein. 8. So also, it is to be noticed that Ext.P5 undertaking was given by the petitioner on 30.06.2008. Any grievance against the same was raised by the petitioner for the first time as per Ext.P6, which is dated 03.10.2019, i.e., after a period of 11 years therefrom. This itself shows the hollowness of the petitioner's claim. Though in Ext.P6, it is stated that he came to know about the contents of the undertaking “later”, it is not stated as to when he came to know about it. The contention that the petitioner was unaware W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 7 :- of the contents of Ext.P5 undertaking cannot be accepted. 9. It is also to be noticed that, the respondents, at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit has stated that the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee was in Malayalam and the same was duly served on the petitioner. A copy of the said minutes is Ext.R3(a). The same contains the decision of the Executive Committee including the terms and conditions for re-appointment. The petitioner has not controverted the said averment by filing a reply affidavit. 10. As noticed, the re-appointment of the petitioner was solely on humanitarian grounds. The challenge against the undertaking given is highly belated. W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 8 :- The writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN** **JUDGE** yd W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 9 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14811/2021** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.1994 TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 12.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2007 IN W.P.(C) NO. 10204/2002, 10309/2002 AND 10430/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DTPCK/A/2008 DATED 17.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 30.06.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.10.2019. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER HRMP NO. 7247/11/19/KLM DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2021 IN W.P.C NO. 11837/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 19.11.2007 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** W.P.(C)No.14811 of 2021 -: 10 :- **Exhibit R3(B)** **A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.11837 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**