Suresh Babu P v Travancore Titanium Products Limited

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 19948 of 2017 (P) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **SURESH BABU. P WORKING AS CHIEF MANAGER (PROJECT AND STRAGEGIC PLANNING), TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695021, RESIDING AT TC 34/652, ANRA - 113, ASWATHY, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695013.** **BY ADV. SMT.M.C.SINY** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LIMITED KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695021, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **2. MANAGING DIRECTOR TRAVANCORE TITANINUM PRODUCTS LIMITED, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695021.** **3. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. SMTNISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **RKC** ## **WP(C).No. 19948 of 2017 (P)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------EXHIBIT-P1: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY DATED 25.1.1999.** **EXHIBIT-P2: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF GO (RT) NO.1323/2011/ID DATED 24.10.2011.** **EXHIBIT-P3: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF NOTICE NO PL/A/RET/1657/2017(1) DATED 31.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P4: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 3.6.2017 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P5: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROFORMA FOR CONSIDERING AN OFFICER FOR EXTENSION OF SERVICE.** **EXHIBIT P6: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RETIREMENT LIST CONTAINING THE NAMES OF OFFICERS, STAFF AND WORKMEN FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2017MARCH 2018 IN THE RESPONDENT COMPANY.** **EXHIBIT-P7: THE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.P.L/I/WEL/RTD/5/2017 DT.15.5.17 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANY TO ALL ITS EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RETIREMENT FUNCTION TO BE HELD ON 31.5.17 AT 11.30 IN THE TRAINING HALL OF THE COMPANY** **EXHIBIT-P8: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 12.6.2017 UNDER RTI ACT.** **EXHIBIT-P9: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT.16.7.17.** **EXHIBIT-P10: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.3.4.17 TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **EXHIBIT-P11: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 ON EXT.P8 QUESTIONNAIRE.** **EXHIBIT-P12: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PCB/HO/TVM/ICO/18/2007 DT.5.9.13** **EXHIBIT-P13: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT REFUSAL ORDER** PCB **/HO/TVM/ICO/18/2007 DT.9.4.14** **EXHIBIT-P14: THE TRUE COPY OF THE MD'S ORDER NO.19/2016 DT.15.10.16** **EXHIBIT-P15: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT.18.5.17** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT R1A: TRUE COPY OF CRITERIA FOLLOWED FOR EX TENSION OF SERVICE** **EXHIBIT R1B: TRUE COPY OF CRITERIA BY WHICH THE SERVICE EXTENSION OF THE PETITIONER IS REJECTED** **EXHIBIT R1C: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR ST/ST RKC** **TRUE COPY** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** ## **W.P.(C) No.19948 of 2017** ## **Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner who was working as the Chief Manager in the Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. is aggrieved by the abrupt order relieving him from service on attaining the age of 58 years. 2. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He commenced his service under the 1[st] respondent on 19.2.1999. On promotion he joined as Chief Manager (Commercial) in Gr.I on 25.7.2012. Prior to his promotion as Chief Manager he worked as Commercial Manager, Manager (Marketing), Manager (Materials) Manager (HR), Manager (Systems) and Chief Manager. He submits that he was holding the charge of IT Division and Sports Division and functioned as management representative for ISO Certification and Nodal Officer of E procurement program of Government of Kerala. 3. The retirement age of the officers as well as the workmen in the 1[st] respondent was originally fixed as 60 years. Thereafter, it was fixed as 58 years. In the 362[nd] meeting of the Board of Directors held on 13.8.2010, it was resolved to request Government to restore the retirement age of officers to 60 years. Government thereafter issued Ext.P2 order on 24.10.2011 approving the proposal to grant service extension (restoration of retirement age) to the managerial W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** personnel and employees in the workmen subcategory of the company from 58 to 60 years of age. According to the petitioner, ever since the issuance of Ext.P2 order there was no occasion when an officer was relieved at the age of 60 years. Petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 31.5.2017. The 1[st] respondent had issued a memo indicating the details of officers who were retiring on 31.5.2017. In that memo the name of the petitioner was not included. However, Ext.P3 notice was issued on 31.5.2017 informing that he would be relieved with effect from 31.5.2017 afternoon saying that he was not eligible for extension of service as he did not satisfy the criteria for extension of service. The petitioner was directed to collect his retirement benefits from the Finance Department. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P4 representation pointing out the discriminatory treatment towards him in denying extension of service beyond 58 years. Petitioner submits that even at the time when the farewell party was arranged the petitioner was not informed of the decision to relieve him and Ext.P3 notice was served on him at 3.30 PM on 31.5.2017. The petitioner has produced Ext.P6 list, pointing out that all the 35 officers/workmen mentioned therein were allowed to continue till the age of 60 and they retired from service in 2017-18. Petitioner has along with IA No.10133 of 2017 produced Ext.P7 notice issued on 15.7.2017 in W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** which the Labour Welfare Officer of the 1[st] respondent notified the farewell function scheduled to be held on 31.5.2017 in connection with the retirement of four employees and points out that the name of petitioner was not included in this. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the age of retirement of the employees in the 1[st] respondent Company was reduced to 58 years with effect from July 2007. Thereafter in the meeting held on 28.6.2010 it was decided to grant service extension for workmen and officers upto 60 years on the basis of the criteria fixed therein. It was decided that the extension would be for a period of 1 year at a time which may be extended by another one year. The criteria fixed in Ext.R2(a) for extension are that: (1) there should not be any disciplinary action in process/pending against the officer, (2) should not have undergone any punishment in the preceding 3 years and no punishment shall be in operation at the time of consideration for service extension, (3) should not have availed loss of pay leave in excess of an average of 20 days per year in the preceding 3 years, (4) should not have availed long leave for employment abroad/outside the company within the preceding 3 years, (5) performance rating for the last 3 years should be above average, (6) the continuation of the officer is beneficial to the W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** company (as certified by the head of department). In the proforma Ext.R2(b), for considering an officer for service extension, the petitioner was found to have fulfilled all the criteria under part A. The HOD did not recommend his continuance under part B. Item No.5 under part A of Ext.R2 (b) is “whether performance rating for the last 3 years was 'above average': yes”. Part A of Ext.R2(b) proforma is seen filled by the Dy.General Manager (HR). The details to be furnished by Head of the Department contains three entries in the proforma: (1) whether the overall performance of the employee is above average, (2) whether the continuation of the employee is beneficial to the company and (3) recommended/not recommended extension. As against all the three entries the remarks of the Head of the Department is “on consideration of the present grave situation faced by the company and based on the non-performance of Shri.Sureshbabu during his period the service extension need not be allowed.” 5. According to the respondents, the petitioner does not have any right to extension of retirement age. The criteria for extension is as given in Ext.R1(a) and it is for the Head of the Department to decide whether the continuation of the officer is beneficial to the company. In this case the Head of the Department did not W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** recommend extension in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, since the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria fixed for extension there is nothing wrong in relieving the petitioner. Respondents have stated that there had been instances where officers and workers were denied service extension beyond 58 years and that service extension granted is a discretion of the management strictly in accordance with Ext.R1 (a). It is their further contention that there was no reason for the petitioner to have any legitimate expectation since the retirement age of the officers continued to be 58 years. It is also stated that extension of service is granted only in the case of officers who fulfilled the criteria. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit producing Exts.P9 to P11 and asserting that there was no occasion when the performance of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and there is no material to conclude that extension need not be allowed on the non performance of the petitioner or to say that there was any grave situation faced by the company. Ext.P9 is a news item published in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 16.7.2017 in which it was stated that the financial condition of the 1[st] respondent company was improving and it was profit making. Ext.P10 is a letter dated 3.4.2017 of the Managing Director congratulating the employees of the 1[st] respondent on the W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** improvement and achievements attained and the situation during the year 2016-17 in which it had remarkable achievements within the past 5 years pointing out that company could run profitably. Producing Ext.P11 letter under the Right to Information Act petitioner submits that 33 employees, who attained the age of 58 years during the period from January 2017 to May 2017, were granted extension while the only employee who is denied extension is the petitioner. 7. The respondents thereupon filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was working as Dy.General Manager (Strategic Planning) and he was entrusted with additional function of Project Department and the designation of the petitioner was changed to Dy.General Manager (Pj. & SP) on 30.7.2016 and that the post of Dy.General Manager is the head of the Department in project section. The petitioner who was acting as Head of the Department was responsible to ensure statutory compliance and also to take timely action for successful performance of the projects of the company. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had, as per its letter dated 20.3.2017, directed the 1[st] respondent to submit a status report with respect to the allegation regarding pollution which appeared in the Hindu daily dated 15.12.2016. The Managing Director brought this matter to the notice W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** of the senior officials of the company including the petitioner and directed to take follow up action. But despite this specific complaint relating to the pollution, the petitioner, who was acting as Dy.G.M (Pj & SP) from 30.7.2016 onwards failed to identify that the renewal application of consent to operate the company before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board was long pending. Therefore, the status report was filed before the Ministry ignoring the vital aspect that the consent to operate had already expired. It is therefore stated that in case the petitioner had shown due diligence this lapse could have been identified and could have obtained consent and rectified the defects. The Pollution Control Board issued a closure notice in May 2017 in these circumstances. Therefore, it is stated that the lapses on the part of the petitioner after he took charge as Dy.G.M (Pj. & SP) caused serious injury to the company and the Head of the Department had made the remarks in that context. The grave situation mentioned in Ext.R2(b) by the Head of the Department is the issuance of closure notice by the Central Pollution Control Board for not obtaining the consent to operate on account of the lapses on the part of the petitioner who headed that division. It is further stated that the consent to operate was renewed thereafter and the company started functioning. The respondents further stated that the grave situation W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** mentioned in the proforma was not the financial condition. It is also stated that even though the performance rating for the last 3 years of the petitioner was stated to be above average in Ext.R2(b) by the Dy.G.M (HR), the Head of the Department had evaluated the overall performance of the petitioner especially in the back ground of the closure notice by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and assessed that non performance of the petitioner led to the present grave situation faced by the company. Denying the allegation that petitioner was subjected to discrimination treatment on account of the fact that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community, it was stated that petitioner had filed an application before the Kerala State Commission for SC/ST seeking a direction to extend his service and that petitioner cannot be allowed to seek the very same relief from different courts/forum simultaneously. 8. The petitioner again filed a reply to the additional counter affidavit producing Ext.P12 letter received from the Kerala Pollution Control Board. The petitioner pointed out that application for consent to operate was submitted on 30.3.2012 itself and the renewal application was rejected on 9.4.2014 as per Ext.P13 letter on the ground that functioning of Effluent Treatment Plant was not started and waste water is discharging in the sea without any treatment. The W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** petitioner points out that he was given additional charge of the project department only, as per order dated 30.7.2016 and that as per Ext.P14 order dated 15.10.2016 one Sri.Vinod R. Asst. GM (Pj & E) was entrusted to look after the functions relating to safety, environment and estate and that matters relating to safety, environment and estate was to be reported to the Managing Director himself. On the strength of Ex.P15 letter of the Central Pollution Control Board issued on 18.5.2017, the petitioner stated that the reason for issuing closure notice was that the Kochuveli unit of the respondent company was operating without any effluent treatment plant and it was on environmental issues which were being handled by Sri.Vinod R. Asst. GM (Pj & E). The petitioner was not in any way responsible for the same and it cannot be said that there was any lapse on the part of the petitioner. 9. The respondents have filed a 2[nd] additional counter affidavit stating that as the head of the project Department, it was the sole responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that formal application for the consent to operate had to be submitted to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board despite Exts.P12 and P13. Therefore, it is stated that though Ext.P13 letter (dated 9.4.2014) was received refusing consent to operate, if a fresh application for consent with the relevant details W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** was submitted, it would be considered on merits. That being so, at least when the petitioner started his term as Head of the Department on 30.7.2016 the fact that a very vital statutory application was not made, ought to have been brought to the notice of the higher ups including the Managing Director. It is also stated that the petitioner had not informed any of the higher officials in the company that the consent to operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board was long due/pending and that an officer, who is heading the project department in his normal course of employment was bound to show at least the basic minimum prudence/diligence in the matter. It is further stated that the functional responsibility of the effluent treatment plant comes under the project department. If the petitioner had reported about the status for renewal of consent to operate to the Managing Director in time, appropriate steps could have been initiated with the intervention of the Managing Director, Board of Directors and Government. But the petitioner suppressed the status of the renewal of consent to operate, whereby Ext.P15 closure notice was issued on 18.5.2017. Being the HOD of the project department, the petitioner cannot evade from his obligation to discharge the functions assigned to him. It is stated that the petitioner was also holding the charge of Factory Manager who should be W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [19 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** responsible to the occupier for the working of the factory for the purpose of the Act as per Kerala Factories Rules 1957. He is also to ensure the management of Safety, Health & Environment at the site without any compromise and to obtain the license from the Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers as well as the consent to operate from the KSPCB. Therefore, it is stated that he cannot mulct with the responsibility of obtaining the consent to operate. It is therefore stated that there was nothing wrong in the remarks made by the HOD in not recommending extension of service in the case of the petitioner. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. According to the petitioner, the whole action in relieving the petitioner on 31.5.2017 and thereafter accusing him as the person responsible for the closure of the unit for want of consent to operate is all discriminatory tactics adopted by the respondents only because he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and he is the only officer who is denied the benefit of extension. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**D.C.Aggrawal (Dead) by Lrs. vs. State Bank of India and another : 2006 (5) SCC 153**_ and the judgment in _**State bank of Bikaner & Jaipur**_ W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** _**& Others vs. Jag Mohan Lal : AIR 1989 SC 75**_ argued that extension of service is not a right and it is the discretion of the employer. 13. In the judgment in _**D.C.Aggrawal**_ (supra) the question considered was with respect to the claim of a Dy.G.M of State Bank of India, who claimed extension of service upto the age of 60 years and consequential benefits. In that case, an enquiry was conducted against the appellant based on which he was reverted. Thereafter, on transfer he did not join the transferred post. There were cases in which the petitioner challenged denial of his promotion. An enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner in the meanwhile which ultimately resulted in removal from service but the proceedings were set aside by the court. When these cases were pending before the court he was granted extension in service initially up to the age of 58 years for a period of 3 years. The further request of the petitioner for extension was rejected. That issue was under consideration in the case. Paragraph 22 onwards of the judgment relates to claims for extension of service. In that case, the question regarding extension of service was considered by a committee constituted on the basis of a direction from the Apex Court, as directed in that I.A. The committee decided that no extension would be granted. In paragraph 25 of the judgment W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the Apex Court observed that the manner in which extension of service is to be granted was already considered by the Apex Court in the judgment in _**Bikaner & Jaipur & Others vs. Jag Mohan Lal** ,_ where it was held that the sole purpose of giving extension of service is to promote the interest of the bank and not to confer any benefit or favour on retiring officers. The service rendered by an officer for a certain number of years would not earn him the benefit of that privilege. As per the rules of the Bank, the Bank is required to assess the continued utility, good health and integrity beyond reproach of the officer and in case he lacks one or the other criteria, extension need not be given. The non-extension of service is not the reflection on the caliber of the officer. The Apex Court did not find any circumstances to interfere with the findings of the Division Bench that no right is vested in the officer to demand extension beyond the age of 58 years. In the judgment in _**Jag Mohan Lal's**_ case (supra) the Apex Court considered the effect of Regulation 19 (1) which prevailed in the bank. As per that provision it was the discretion of the competent authority to extend the period of service of an officer who attained the age of 58 years or completed 30 years of service, if such extension was deemed desirable with the interest of the bank. The stand of the bank, which had considered all the relevant criteria, was that the respondent did W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** not fit in any of the guidelines. It was held that the High Court under Article 226 cannot review that decision. it was held that the bank has no obligation to extend the services of all officers even if they were found suitable in every respect and the primary consideration was the interest of the bank and there is no question of discrimination or violation of fundamental rights in the matter of extension of service by the bank and therefore there was no scope for complaining arbitrariness. Therefore, the respondents assert that their finding on the basis of the remarks given by the HOD cannot be interfered with under Article 226 Constitution of India. 14. But in this case the respondents have stated that reason for coming to the conclusion was that there was non performance on the part of the petitioner which resulted in the grave situation of the company. The conditions provided in the Rules of the Bank in the judgments _supra_ and those under the respondents for extension are different. Respondents have stated that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the closure of the unit for want of consent to operate. But the documents produced by the respondents as well as the petitioner especially Exts.P13 to P15 would reveal that the renewal application submitted by the company was already refused on reasons given therein for which no action was taken from 2014 onwards when W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** petitioner was in no way connected with such issues. The Pollution Control Board had issued Ext.P13 notice dated 05.09.2013 that the application submitted on 30.03.2012 for renewal of consent to operate was objected on various grounds including several defects apart from discharging affluents without treatment, non-completion of copper plant, etc; Ext.P14 would show that several opportunities were already granted to the respondent company to rectify the defects and hearings were held for that purpose. It is seen that a hearing was conducted on 26.03.2014 also; and even thereafter the effluent treatment plant was not started and waste water was being discharged to sea without any treatment. Therefore, on that and other grounds mentioned in Ext. P13, the application for renewal was refused on 09.04.2014. It is after more than 2 years that the petitioner, who was the Deputy General Manager(Pj&SP), was directed to function as Manager of the Factory as per the Factories Act, as per Ext.P15 order issued on 30.07.2016. By the very same order one Sri. Vinod R, Assistant General Manager (Pj&E) was entrusted to look after the functions relating to Safety, Environment & Estate (Pj&SE) in addition to his duties already assigned to him designating him as AGM(Pj&S&E) and directing him that he shall report directly to Managing Director. The respondents themselves have stated that the petitioner who was Deputy General W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Manager(Strategic & Planning) was entrusted with additional function of Project Department and his designation was changed as Deputy Manager (Pj&SP) on 30.07.2016. Even then in the additional counter affidavit it was stated that in case the petitioner had taken timely action to submit an application for the consent to operate, it could have been made in a timely manner and lapses could have been identified. But when the petitioner produced Exts.P13 to P15 which show that consent to operate was refused as early as on 09.04.2014, that too, after giving several extension for commissioning effluent treatment plant and warning were tendered for discharging of affluents to sea without treatment, they filed the 2[nd] additional counter affidavit saying that petitioner should have taken steps to submit fresh application at least after he joined the Project Department on 30.07.2016, when there is already an officer appointed for environment alone. That means, till the petitioner produced Exts.P13 to P15, respondents 1 and 2, to whom the notices Exts.P13 to P15 were issued, were ignorant of such notices just as the officers, if any, who were in charge of the department at the relevant time or that the respondents have deliberately stated such factually incorrect statements in their calculated move to mulct with the charges on the petitioner in order to deny relief to the petitioner. From the affidavits W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** they filed, it would appear that they have never looked into Ext.P15 refusal even after months of closure notice issued in 2017 till the production of the same in the reply affidavit and also that the officers if any who were in charge since 2012 onwards never disclosed it, though the notices are addressed to 2[nd] respondent. The different counter affidavits of the respondents filed from time to time point towards the calculated move to keep the petitioner away somehow or other. An overall reading of all these counter affidavits reflect the attitude shown towards the petitioner and it would show that the respondents were determined to deny extension to the petitioner on one or other reason. The action of the respondents in denying extension of service is therefore vitiated by malice in law. 15. On an overall consideration of the circumstances including the fact that the petitioner is the first employee under the respondents who is faced with denial of extension and that no action was ever initiated against him throughout his service career, coupled with his complaint that his promotions were being delayed and the attitude of the respondents as revealed in the counter affidavits filed from time to time, I find that there is force in the contention of the petitioner that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment on the ground that he belongs to scheduled caste community. When the consent to operate W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** was refused long back, in March 2014 petitioner who joined the Project Department on 30[th] July 2016 is penalised for not renewing the license or for not taking action to get the license renewed. Exts.P13 to P15 would reveal that it was a matter pending action initiated by the Pollution Control Board since the year 2014. There is every reason to accept the contention of the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner failed to identify that the application for renewal was long pending and that status report filed before the MoEF ignoring that consent to operate had expired which all happened years before, would all reveal their discriminatory approach to the petitioner. 16. In the circumstances of the case, the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel that employee has no vested right for extension and the only relevant factor is the interest of the establishment and this Court cannot interfere with that discretion cannot be accepted, as the denial of extension in this case is on grounds which are baseless and based on the arbitrary exercise of discretionary power vested in the Head of the Department on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. When the extension is denied arbitrarily and the grounds on which the refusal is attempted to be justified are found baseless this Court can definitely step in. When the remarks given are on such extraneous considerations, the denial of W.P.(C) No.19948/17 **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** extension can only be found as a measure of discriminatory treatment towards the petitioner apparently because he is a member of Scheduled Caste community. It is pertinent to note that there was not a single instance when any of the employees was denied extension of service. Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel will not apply in the fact situation arising in this case. In the above circumstances, I find that denial of extension to the petitioner is arbitrary. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of petitioner and to pass orders on extension of service of the petitioner afresh, untrammelled by the remarks of the HOD within a period of three weeks from today. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** rkc