High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-14Disposed of with directions to consider Ext. P7...

Sathianarayanan T.V v Union of India and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2022-06-14
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to forward Ext. P7 representation to the 1st respondent for proper consideration. The 1st respondent shall take up the representation and consider and pass orders on the same, untrammelled by Ext. P8, with appropriate reasoned orders in consultation with the 2nd respondent within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to consider Ext. P7 and pass speaking orders within two months; Ext. P8 not to govern the decision-making process in light of committee recommendations.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sathianarayanan T.V

Respondents

Union of India
Cochin Port Trust
Secretary, Cochin Port Trust

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv Sunil Jacob Jose

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv Manu S., ASG of India

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition by Sathianarayanan T.V., a Sr. Very High Frequency (VHF) Operator in the Cochin Port Trust, challenges a denial of up-gradation of his post despite Afzulpurkar Committee recommendations that included up-gradation for Senior VHF Operator and related posts. The petitioner joined the Port Trust in 1994, was promoted to Senior VHF Operator in 2006, and claims stagnation since then while peers have been promoted or up-graded. The Afzulpurkar Committee’s report, which recommended upgrading several posts including VHF-related posts, was forwarded to the Port Trust and the Ministry (Exts. P4–P6). However, Ext. P8—an internal communication from the Under Secretary to the Chairperson of the Cochin Port Trust—denies the upgrade for the VHF Operator without reasons. The petitioner sought quashing Ext. P8 and mandamus to implement the committee’s recommendations (and a speaking order on Ext. P9) within a timeframe. The respondents contend that Ext. P8 reflects an administrative decision; the committee’s two Senior VHF Operator posts are not separately approved and the recommendations mostly pertain to pay-scale and entitlements, not universal upgrades. The Court ultimately disposes of the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to forward the petitioner’s Ext. P7 to the 1st respondent for proper consideration, with a reasoned order within two months, in consultation with the 2nd respondent.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Afzulpurkar Committee’s up-gradation recommendations, including for Senior VHF Operator, were not implemented; Ext. P8 denies this upgrade without any reason, rendering Ext. P3/P4/P5/P6 ineffective. Petitioner’s Ext. P7 request was not properly considered, and Ext. P8 cannot lawfully override the committee’s recommendations. The petitioner seeks quashing Ext. P8 and mandamus to implement the upgrade, or a speaking order on Ext. P9, in line with the Afzulpurkar Committee’s recommendations, within a defined timeframe. The Court should ensure consistent application of administrative policy and grant relief similar to upgrades given in other cases (e.g., Marine Foreman) where financial implications were involved, if applicable.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that Ext. P8 is an administrative communication reflecting a decision not to upgrade the VHF Operator post. The Afzulpurkar Committee’s recommendations were forwarded (Exts. P4–P6) but the ministry did not accede to upgrading this specific post. The committee’s scope focused on pay scale changes and entitlement benefits rather than creating/ upgrading promotion posts in all cases. The Respondents also rely on the principle that administrative decisions need not disclose reasons in every executive communication, citing a Supreme Court decision (National Highways Authority v Mandhukar Kumar) to contend that reasons may not be required in communications, and that Ext. P8 does not automatically bind or negate the committee’s recommendations.”},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
National Highways Authority of India and Ors v. Mandhukar Kumar and Ors	2021 SCC Online SC 791	Distinguished	The court distinguished this decision, noting the cited case concerned the location of a toll plaza and not a personnel-upgradation dispute; therefore, its reasoning on reasons in executive communications did not govern the instant case.

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 Sathianarayanan T.V v Union of India and Ors. 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** SATHIANARAYANAN T.V AGED 54 YEARS NOW WORKING AS SR. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OPERATOR, MARINE DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682009, RESIDING AT THERAMBATH HOUSE, P.O, THRITHELLOOR WEST, TRICHUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680619. BY ADV SUNIL JACOB JOSE ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, (PORTS WING), TRANSPORT BHAVAN NO.1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2 COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682009. 3 THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682009. BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P8 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash Ext.P8, being non-speaking and as a result of nonapplication of mind to the fact aspects projected through the recommendations by the Afzulpurkar Committee report and recommendations through Ext.P4, P5 & P6 of the 3[rd] respondent, for grant of up-gradation to the petitioner; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to immediately implement the Afzulpurkar Committee report granting upgradation of the post of Sr. VHF Operator, held by the petitioner; iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directing the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass a speaking order on Ext.P9, in the light of Afzulpurkar Committee report and recommendations through Ext.P4, P5 & P6 of the 3[rd] respondent, de-hors Ext P8, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court; iv. To declare the commission and omission on the part of the respondents as arbitrary and illegal and hold the petitioner eligible for grant of up-gradation in the post of Sr.VHF Operator and to direct the respondents to grant up-gradation WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022 3 of the post of Sr.VHF Operator, held by the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned ASGI appearing for 1[st] respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had joined the Cochin Port Trust as a Very High Frequency Operator (VHF Operator) in May,1994 and continued in the post till the year, 2006. In 2006, he was promoted as Senior VHF Operator and had been continuing in the said post. It is stated that all other employees of the 2[nd] respondent had been granted promotions or at least up-gradations. However, on the ground that there is no promotion post, the petitioner had been stagnating as Senior VHF Operator, since 2006. 4. It is submitted that a committee was constituted by the 1[st] respondent to study the grievances of the staff in the various major Ports in the country. The committee submitted recommendations, including recommendation for up-gradation of several posts including that of Senior VHF Operator. The matter was taken up before the respondents for implementation, WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022 4 however, Ext.P8 communication has been issued to the Port Trust stating that in the case of VHF Operator alone, the proposal for up-gradation has not been acceded to. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P8 is a communication from the under Secretary to the Government to the Chairperson of the Cochin Port Trust which discloses absolutely no reason for singling out the post held by the petitioner alone for denial of the benefit of up-gradation as recommended in Ext.P3. It is submitted that the said communication cannot stand in the way of proper consideration of the request made by the petitioner for up-gradation on the strength of the recommendations of the committee as evident from Ext.P3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in cases where financial implications were involved, like in the cases of Marine Foreman, the up-gradation had been allowed, as is evident from Ext.P2. It is therefore contended that Ext.P7 request made by the petitioner before the 2[nd] respondent is liable to be considered by the 1[st] respondent and appropriate directions are liable to be issued upgrading the post. WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022 5 6. A statement has been placed on record by the ASGI on behalf of the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted that several representations had been received with regard to the implementation of the one-man committee report by the Port Trust as well as the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted that the proposal was forwarded to the Ministry as per Ext.P4, but the same was not acceded to by the Ministry. It is contended that the two posts in the category of Senior VHF Operator are the posts mentioned in the committee report ie. (i) Signaller cum VHF Operator and (ii) Senior VHF Operator and not two posts of Senior VHF Operator, as stated by the petitioner. It is contended that the committee report was confined to change in scale of pay without fixation and option benefits. It is further contended by the learned ASGI that it is not in all circumstances that administrative decisions have to state the reasons in the orders passed by appropriate authorities in exercise of their executive powers. Relying on a decision of the Apex court in National Highways Authority of India and Ors v. Mandhukar Kumar and Ors [2021 SCC Online SC 791] it is contended that if the decision is WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022 6 informed by reasons, it is not imperative that the reasons must be disclosed in the communications of the executive authorities. 7. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side, it is not in dispute before me that Ext.P3 recommendation of the one-man committee included the up-gradation of the posts of VTMS Operators and VHF Operators as well. On the said basis Ext.P4 letter had been forwarded by the 2[nd] respondent for upgradation of the posts, Ext.P5 letter dated 26/6/2019 had also been duly forwarded. The petitioner had also approached the Port Trust with Ext.P7 request. However, by Ext.P8 which is a communication addressed to the Chairperson of the Cochin Port Trust, the request has been rejected without stating any reasons whatsoever. Apart from being a cryptic order, which is not informed by any reason, Ext.P8 also does not answer the requirements of an executive order issued by the Union and is only in the nature of a communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government to the Chairperson of the Cochin Port Trust. The decision relied on by the learned ASGI can also have no application in the instant case since the executive WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022 7 decision referred to therein was with regard to the location of a toll plaza on a stretch of Highway and was not with regard to any request made by an individual employee. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that a communication in the nature of Ext.P8 cannot govern the issue where there has been a recommendation by the one-man committee and the petitioner has approached the respondents seeking the implementation of the same. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to forward Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner to the 1[st] respondent for a proper consideration. The 1[st] respondent shall take up the representation and consider and pass orders on the same, untrammelled by anything stated in Ext.P8. Appropriate reasoned orders shall be passed in consultation with the 2[nd] respondent as well within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** ska WP(C) NO. 6167 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6167/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RECORD DETAILING THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SR. VHF OPERATOR. Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.03.2004 OF THE COCHIN PORT EMPLOYEES ORGANISATION. Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFZULPURKAR COMMITTEE REPORT. - Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.12.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.06.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.11.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.01.2011 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.07.2021 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.10.20221 OF THE COCHIN PORT EMPLOYEES SANGH.