High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-11-14Writ appeal dismissed

Sasikala Lower Division Typist, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.452 OF 2008(A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2019-11-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ appeal dismissed; no interference with the impugned judgment; parties to bear their own costs.
Final Disposition: Writ appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sasikala Lower Division Typist, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

C.S. Vijayakumari U.D. Typist, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram
K.N. Raji U.D. Typist, Directorate of Mining, Thiruvananthapuram
K. Rajeswari LD Typist, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Ayyanthole
K. Pramodini LD Typist, District Office of the Department of Mining & Geology, Wayanad
P. Gopakumar LD Typist, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram
M.D. Omana LD Typist, District Office of the Department of Mining & Geology, Kottayam
State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government Industries (A), Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Directorate of Mining Geology, Trivandrum-4, represented by its Director
Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom
Smt. C. Shyamala Devi LD Typist, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Parameswaran Nair
• Sri K.R. Kurup
• Smt. Sreelatha Parameswaran Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri U.K. Ramakrishnan (No Memo)
• Sri Antony Mukkath (Sr.GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellant, Sasikala, a daily wage employee in the Kerala Mineral Exploration and Development Project, challenges denial of regularisation after the project merged with the Directorate of Mining & Geology. She claims she was employed as a daily wager since 1985 and asserts that a condition in Annexure A1 promised regularisation on merger. The Government’s clarification (Annexure A2) narrowed the scope, noting that the prior judgment did not mandate regularisation for all categories but only for petitioners two onwards in O.P.9934/95 based on the promise in Ext.P20. The Government is said to have considered regularisation and issued Ext.P11. The case thus concerns retrospective regularisation impacting seniority and the beneficiaries under the original petition. The judgment below relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority (AIR 1990 SC 2228), which held that regularisation cannot be retroactive and can only be from the date of regularisation. The High Court, while not disturbing the reasoning, dismissed the writ appeal and declined to interfere with the impugned order, directing costs to be borne by the parties. The decision underscores adherence to statutory provisions (Public Service Commission involvement) and clarifications issued, and upholds the principle that regularisation cannot be granted retrospectively without conforming to statutory requirements.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Additional Functions ActKerala State Subordinate Service RulesRule 9(a)(1) (Government Service/PSU appointments)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Non-retroactivity principle: regularisation cannot have retrospective effect; relief must be prospective and in accordance with statutory provisions.
Regularisation must comply with statutory provisions and PSC rules; discretionary regularisation cannot contravene statutory framework.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that regularisation was promised at merger based on Annexure A1, and that Ext.P20/Ext.P11 indicate a commitment to regularise petitioner No.2 onwards. She argues denial of retroactive regularisation affects seniority and contravenes the prior directions in O.P.9934/95. The challenge is to compel prospective regularisation consistent with statutory provisions and earlier government orders.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that regularisation cannot be retroactive and must be consistent with statutory provisions, PSC rules, and the clarifications issued. They argue that the prior judgment does not mandate broad regularisation and that the impugned order adequately follows statutory constraints, with no entitlement to retrospective relief. The analysis relies on the Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority precedent to affirm non-retroactivity.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority	AIR 1990 SC 2228	Positive	Cited as direct authority and followed to hold that regularisation cannot have retrospective effect.

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 Sasikala Lower Division Typist, Directorate of Mining & Geology, Thiruvananthapuram 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1941** **WA.No.452 OF 2008(A)** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 19727/2003 DATED 30-11-2006 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **SASIKALA LOWER DIVISION TYPIST, DIRECTORATE OF MINING &, GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.K.R.KURUP SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 C.S.VIJAYAKUMARI U.D.TYPIST, DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 K.N.RAJI U.D.TYPIST, DIRECTORATE OF MINING,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **3 K.RAJESWARI LD TYPIST, DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY,, AYYANTHOLE.** - **4 K.PRAMODINI LD TYPIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF, MINING & GEOLOGY, WAYANAD.** - **5 P.GOPAKUMAR LD TYPIST, DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **WA.No.452 of 2008 2** - **6 M.D.OMANA LD TYPIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF, MINING & GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM.** - **7 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES (A), DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **8 DIRECTORATE OF MINING GEOLOGY TRIVANDRUM-4, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** - **9 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM PALACE P.O., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **10 SMT. C.SHYAMALA DEVI LOWER DIVISION TYPIST, DIRECTORATE OF MINING &, GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN(NO MEMO) SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2019, THIS COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA.No.452 of 2008 3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **VINOD CHANDRAN,J.** The appellant is aggrieved with the disturbance to the regularisation of the appellant, caused by the judgment impugned in this case. The appellant is a daily wage employee, employed in the Kerala Mineral Exploration and Development Project. She claims that she was appointed as daily wager right from 1985 onwards. The project was later merged with the Mining and Geology Department of the State. 2. At the time of merger, one of the conditions as seen from Annexure-A1 was that, the daily wage employees would be considered for regularisation. That having not occurred, the appellant was before this **WA.No.452 of 2008 4** Court in O.P.No.9934/1995. Therein it was directed that the Government would consider such regularisation. 3. A clarification petition was filed as is seen from Annexure-A2 by the Government. In the clarification petition, it was specifically noticed that the earlier judgment did not direct consideration of regularisation of temporary hands appointed under Rule 9(a)(1) in Government Service or in Public Sector Undertakings or daily wage workers or temporary hands appointed before 01.11.1987 or continuing up to 01.01.1994. It was also specifically observed that the Government shall not take the judgment to understand so. The direction was only to consider regularisation of the petitioners No.2 onwards in the original petition based on the promise contained in Ext.P20. **WA.No.452 of 2008 5** Ext.P20 is said to be Annexure-A1, produced before this Court. 4. In the order in the clarification petition, it has also been noticed that the appointment in Government services in several of the Public Sector Undertakings are made on regular basis covered by the Additional Functions Act, Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules etc. The appointments so made should be in consultation with Public Service Commission and there does not arise any regularisation of temporary hands either in Government services or in public sector undertakings. In fact, the order in clarification petition clearly found that there can be no question of regularisation in violation of the statutory provisions. However, it was directed that the Government would consider **WA.No.452 of 2008 6** the question of regularisation of petitioner No.2 onwards in the original petition on the basis of Ext.P20. 5. The Government is said to have considered the regularisation and passed Ext.P11 order, which was challenged in the instant original petition by the other persons who were concerned with the seniority for reason of the retrospective regularisation given to the appellant herein. 6. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment, which merely followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Jacob**_ v. _**Kerala Water authority [AIR 1990 SC**_ _**2228]**_ and found that there can be no retrospective effect given to regularisation and it can only be from the date of regularisation. We do not think that there **WA.No.452 of 2008 7** can be any interference caused to the judgment as such. The writ appeal would stand dismissed. Parties to suffer their respective costs. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **Sd/-** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** SB/14/11/2019 **WA.No.452 of 2008 8** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1** **TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)65/96/ID DATED 20/03/1996.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.NO.13796/99 IN O.P.NO.9934/95.** **ANNEXURE A3 & A4 TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTERS DATED 22/01/1991 AND 18/02/1991.** **RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL** **// TRUE COPY //** **P.A TO JUDGE**