High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-04-04Disposed of; Review petition rejected; Contempt...

Cont.Case(C) No.1829 of 2020 & RP No.596 of 2021 in OP(KAT) No.286 of 2015

Case / Petition Number:CON.CASE(C) NO.1829 OF 2020; RP NO.596 OF 2021 in OP(KAT) NO.286 OF 2015

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-04-04
Court Decision / Holding: The review petition is rejected; contempt case disposed with a reservation. The court reiterates that the direction for notional promotion, though applicable to the facts of this case, cannot be extended beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s order. The notional promotion has retrospective effect only within the factual framework of this case.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; Review petition rejected; Contempt petition closed with reservation

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suo Motu
Leesamma Joseph

Respondents

Rahul R. Nair, IPS
The State of Kerala, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs
The State Police Chief, Kerala
The District Police Chief, IDUKKI
Kerala Administrative Tribunal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Advocate for Suo Motu
• Girija K. Gopal
• K. N. Vigy

Counsels for Respondents

• Antony Mukkath, Sr. GP
• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

A High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) issues a joint judgment on Cont.Case(C) 1829/2020 and RP 596/2021 arising from OP(KAT) 286/2015, concerning promotions granted under a 3% reservation for differently abled persons. The petitioner seeks monetary benefits from the date promotions were granted, arguing that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State’s SLP did not bar raising issues not raised before it, and that review should address broader questions beyond the 3% reservation confirmed by the Supreme Court. The respondents contend that the directions were limited to notional promotions under the 3% reservation and that further promotions to higher posts were not within the scope of the orders, noting vacancies and the asserted lack of extension to other cadres. The court holds that no review lies against its clear direction for notional promotion, citing the State of West Bengal v. Kemal Sengupta (2008) to justify limiting the effect of the order to the facts of the case. It also notes that the full effect of the orders has not been carried out, initiating suo motu contempt proceedings. The court directs contempt to be closed with a reservation. Ultimately, the review petition is rejected and contempt disposed with the order’s scope limited to the facts of the case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notional promotion
Notional promotions with retrospective effect

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Suo Motu petitioner contends entitlement to monetary benefits from the date promotions were issued under the 3% reservation and argues that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP did not bar consideration of issues not raised before it. The review should address broader issues, including consequences of notional promotions with retrospective effect, and potential remedies for any further grievances. They emphasize that the 3% reservation for differently abled persons has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, potentially enabling relief beyond the limited scope of the original order.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the directions were confined to notional promotion within the 3% reservation; subsequent promotions asserted by the petitioner were not contemplated by the orders. It argues that there are only 34 posts, already with a disabled person in the higher cadre, so the 3% reservation cannot be extended to higher posts. It maintains that any further relief should be sought through appropriate proceedings rather than in this review.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of West Bengal v. Kemal Sengupta	[(2008) 8 SCC 612]	Positive	Cited as authority supporting adherence to notional promotion and the limited effect of judicial directions, justifying the court’s restraint in extending relief beyond the case’s facts.

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 Cont.Case(C) No.1829 of 2020 & RP No.596 of 2021 in OP(KAT) No.286 of 2015 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** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1829 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 286/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF** **KERALA** **PETITIONER/S:** **SUO MOTU X BY ADV SUO MOTU** ## **RESPONDENT:** **RAHUL R. NAIR, I.P.S. S/O.RAVINDRAN NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695010** **BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR. GP** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, ALONG WITH RP.596/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** **- 2 -** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944** **RP NO. 596 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 286/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER:** **LEESAMMA JOSEPH,AGED 56 YEARS FORMERLY WORKING AS CASHIER, O/O. DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, IDUKKI, QUARTER NO. E6B, PAINAVU P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603, NOW RESIDING AT VADAKKUZHY VELIYIL, PEZHUMKAVALA, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 508** **BY ADVS. GIRIJA K GOPAL K.N.VIGY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,IDUKKI, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603** - **4 KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SR. GP** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.04.2022, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1829/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** **- 3 -** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------Cont.Case(C)No.1829 of 2020 & R.P.No.596 of 2021 in O.P(KAT) No.286 of 2015 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[th] April, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT/ORDER** **Vinod Chandran, J.** **The review petition is filed seeking** **monetary benefit from the date on which the promotions were granted by the respondents on the basis of the judgment passed. It is also submitted that the SLP filed by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed even without notice to the review petitioner herein. The argument is that hence, nothing prevents the petitioner from approaching this Court on an issue which was not raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The issue raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only regarding the 3% reservation, that is entitled for a differently abled person which alone has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to that extent even if there is a merger, other issues** **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** **- 4 -** **remain open to be considered in the review. We are perfectly in agreement with the learned Counsel for the review petitioner, but however, we are of the opinion that no review would lie as against our clear direction for notional promotion. That was a conscious decision taken by us which cannot be interfered with in a review as has been held in** _**State of WB v. Kemal Sengupta - [(2008) 8 SCC 612]**_ **. The direction to notionally fix the promotion granted subsequently, with retrospective effect, definitely will only be applicable to the facts of this case. The review petition would stand rejected.** **2. In the context of the learned Counsel also submitting that the full effect of the orders passed by us has not been carried out by the respondents, we initiated a** _**suo motu**_ **contempt case. In the contempt case an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner herself, along with the various orders passed, affixed. By Annexure A the petitioner was promoted to the post of U.D** **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** **- 5 -** **Clerk(Senior Clerk) with effect from 10.01.2003. As per Annexure B she was granted further promotion to the cadre of Head Clerk/Cashier/ISA/SA with effect from 23.01.2013. Later by Annexure C order her promotion to the cadre of Head Clerk/Cashier/ISA/SA was made effective from 10.01.2003 against the 3% reservation for differently abled persons and simultaneously on the same reservation she was granted notional promotion to the cadre of Junior Superintendent with effect from 01.01.2007.** **3. The learned Government Pleader submits that even though there was no scope for further promotions as per the directions issued, a further promotion was granted as per Annexure D, to the cadre of Senior Superintendent/Manager/Accounts Officer. We see Annexure D to have been passed since one Ramaparamathma Kumar at Sl.No.21 became junior to the petitioner, in the cadre of Junior Superintendent, consequent to the notional promotion granted to her. She hence was adjusted as Sl.No.20(a) between Sl.No. 20 and Sl.No.21, the** **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** **- 6 -** **latter of which seniority was assigned to Ramaparamathma Kumar. Annexure D strictly is not in compliance with the judgment, but is a natural consequence of her notional promotion by virtue of the 3% reservation to the post of Junior Superintendent.** **4. The further claim of the petitioner is promotion to the post of Administrative Assistant. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no scope for a 3% reservation being applied to that higher post, since there are only 34 posts and there is already a disabled person in that cadre, senior to the petitioner. In such circumstances this does not come within the scope of the directions issued by us which is solely for the promotion of the petitioner in the 3% reservation vacancy as per Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participations) Act, 1995. However, we leave open the remedy of the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings to redress her grievances if any; of** **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** **==> picture [43 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **further denial of promotion. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of her further claims. Contempt case would stand closed with the above reservation.** **Ordered accordingly.** **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge** **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, Judge** **jma** **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** **- 8 -** ## **APPENDIX OF Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** |**ANNEXURE A:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M2-** **144541/2020/PHQ DATED 08.11.2020 GRANTING** **NOTIONAL PROMOTION TO THE PETITIONER IN THE** **CATEGORY OF UD CLERK(SENIOR CLERK) W.E.F.** **10.01.2003**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE B:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M1-144542/2020/PHQ** **DATED 06.01.2021**| |**ANNEXURE C:**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M1-144542/2020/PHQ DT** **03.03.2021**| |**ANNEXURE D:**|**A TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.DGO NO.** **962/2021/PHQ DATED 12.04.2021**| |**ANNEXURE E:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5-151308/2017/PHQ** **DATED 25.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE STATE POLICE** **CHIEF**| **Cont.Case(C) No.1829/2020 & R.P No.596/2021** ## **- 9 -** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 596/2021** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**| |---|---| |**Annexure A**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED**| ||**4.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF**| ||**RADIO DIAGNOSIS AND IMAGING FROM THE**| ||**BELIEVERS CHURCH MEDICAL COLLEGE**| ||**HOSPITAL.**| |**Annexure B**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M2-**| ||**144541/2020/PHQ DATED 8.11.2020 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL.**| |**Annexure C**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE BY ORDER NO. M1-**| ||**144542/2020/PHQ DATED 6.1.2021 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL.**| |**Annexure D**|**A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. M1-**| ||**144542/2020/PHQ DATED 3.3.2021 ISSUED BY**| ||**ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL.**| |**Annexure AE**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. DGO**| ||**NO. 962/2021/PHQ DATED 12.4.2021 ISSUED**| ||**BY STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD**| ||**QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH**| ||**TYPED COPY.**|