Sathyananth.K.R. v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** SATHYANANTH.K.R., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. SEKHARAN, SAI VARAM, KURUVANTHIRUTHY P.O., FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 631 BY ADV T.G.RAJENDRAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001 2 LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LBS REGIONAL UNIT , INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 004 SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP, SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner says that he was working as a Lab Assistant under the “LBS Centre for Science and Technology”, Kozhikode, from 1995 on daily wage basis. He says that he worked in such capacity from 15.02.1995 to 31.05.1996 and that his service was thereafter extended on contract basis until 15.12.2007. He has produced Ext.P1 in substantiation, adding that, due to certain personal reasons, he applied for leave from 15.12.2007 to 14.04.2008 and that he sought for extension of the same through Ext.P2. 2. The petitioner submits that, however, his application for extension of leave was not granted and that even though he reported for duty on 24.12.2008 with Ext.P3 request to admit him to duty, no action was taken thereon. The petitioner says he, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent and that this was followed by another representation, namely Ext.P4. The petitioner alleges that even these representations were not acted upon and therefore that he made a further representation, namely Ext.P7, before the Hon'ble Minister for Education, Government of Kerala on WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 3 07.06.2011, followed by a further one on 14.10.2014, namely Ext.P8, before the Director of the LBS Centre for Science and Technology. 3. The petitioner alleges that in spite of all these representations being pending even until this date, he has not been admitted back to duty and he contends that this is egregiously improper because, during this period, the LBS Centre came out with a Scheme of regularization of employees on contract basis and that a similarly placed person by name Sri.Nazeer A. was given such benefit, as is evident from Exts.P9 and P10. The petitioner says that, on coming to know of the case of Sri.Nazeer A. as afore, he preferred further representations on 08.01.2018 and 28.02.2018 before the second respondent, which are produced and marked as Exts.P11 and P12 in this writ petition, followed by a further one on 01.07.2020, namely Ext.P13. The petitioner, therefore, prays that his representations as narrated above be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the second respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 4. The submissions of the petitioner as made by his WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 4 learned counsel Sri.T.R.Tarin Rajendran, was refuted by Smt.Shameena Salahudheen - learned standing counsel for the second respondent, saying that the petitioner admittedly worked only till 15.12.2007 and that he has been absconding from service ever since then. She then submitted that even though the petitioner says that he has preferred representations after representations, nothing has been placed on record to show that they have been received by her client or that he was entitled to have the same considered in terms of law. She argued that at least one of these representations have been answered by the LBS Centre appropriately, but that the petitioner chose not to take any action thereafter and has chosen to be absconding from service for the last more than 14 years. She then predicated that it is rather baffling that the petitioner, after saying that he attempted to rejoin on 14.04.2008, took no further action, including of approaching this Court through a writ petition but still maintains that he has been making representations after representations, without explaining on what right he edifices these attempts. Smt.Shameena Salahudheen, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 5 5. I must say that I find substantial force in the submissions made on behalf of the second respondent because, admittedly, the petitioner availed leave between 15.12.2007 till 14.04.2008. He did not join duty thereafter, but says that he made an application for extension of leave through Ext.P2. Nothing has been placed by the petitioner on record to show that Ext.P2 had been allowed, but he concedes that he did not attend duty until 24.12.2008, who he says he made Ext.P3 request that he be allowed to rejoin duty. Apart from the fact that there is nothing to substantiate that this representation has been made, pertinently, the petitioner does not have a case that he took any legal action thereafter to obtain his legitimate right, if any; but asserts that he preferred Exts.P4, P5, P7, P8, P11, P12 and P13 representations over the period of the last 14 years, seeking that he be reinstated in service and that he be given the benefit of Ext.P6 Scheme of Regularisation. 6. Needless to say, it is now well settled that repeated representations by an employee cannot obtain to him successive causes of action and this has been well settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another** [(2008) 10 WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 6 SCC 115] and **State of Uttaranchal and another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others** [(2013) 12 SCC 179]. 7. I, therefore, asked Sri.T.R.Tarin Rajendran to explain what his client was doing for the last 14 years and as to why he chose not to approach this Court during this period. The learned counsel was unable to give any cogent explanation, except saying that his client had been preferring representations after representations during this period. As I have already said above, such representations by the petitioner could not have given any legal right and I am certain that since he was admittedly only a contract employee, he cannot claim any vested right to be reinstated or to have the services regularised in terms of Ext.P6 order. 8. That said, though I have now found that the petitioner does not obtain any vested right for being reinstated in service or being regularised in service, taking note of the persuasive submissions of Sri.T.R.Tarin Rajendran and since he asserts that his client was in service on 18.11.1998 – which is the relevant date in Ext.P6, on which an employee ought to have been in service for being entitled to regularisation under it - I WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 7 am of the view that the petitioner can be given one opportunity of approaching the second respondent appropriately, so that they can consider it by way of indulgence, if it is so possible. Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of allowing the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the Director of the second respondent, however, making it clear that this will not be construed as emanating from a vested right or from any statutory remedy; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the said Authority, leading to the grant of any benefit that he may be entitled to, adverting to Exts.P9 and P10 proceedings stated to be issued in the case of similar persons. **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **stu** WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14879/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.7.1998 - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SANCTIONING LEAVE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 13.12.2007 - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.12.2008 - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2008 - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.1.2009 - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.277/2010 /HED DATED 4.9.2010 - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EDUCATION MINISTER DATED 7.6.2011 - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR DA ARREARS DATED 14.10.2014 - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2012 - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED NIL OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.1.2018 - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.2.2018 - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.7.2020 WP(C) NO. 14879 OF 2021 9