Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDismissed

Vazhakulam Grama Panchayat v. Anwar V.K. and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No. 27 of 2017 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. T. Ravikumar
  • K. P. JyothindrANATH
Judgment Date
2017-01-18
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is dismissed
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

Respondents

  • ANWAR V.K.
  • K.E.MUJEEB
  • K.D.VARGHESE
  • PAULSON.P.A
  • ABDUL AZEEZ.P
  • C.A.SATHYAN
  • BIJU.K.V
  • SUDHAN.A.K
  • STATE OF KERALA
  • THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS
  • THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KAKKANAD
  • THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KALPETTA
  • THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, AYYANTHOLE
  • THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KADUNGALLOOR
  • KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
  • MEENANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT
  • AMBALAVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
  • VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
  • CHERPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
  • MATTATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
  • • SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
  • • SRI.N.RAJESH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
  • • GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

The challenge in this original petition (OP(KAT) No.27 of 2017) is against an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA (EKM) 69/2015 dated 31 October 2016. Vazhakulam Grama Panchayat, the petitioner, contends that the Tribunal disposed of the original applications without passing any merits-specific findings and instead directed the Government to decide on pending representations regarding sanctioning posts of drivers and their regularization. The 2nd applicant in OA 69/15, a daily wage driver, and other similarly situated drivers working in different Gram Panchayats, had sought regularization after long service; their case raised concerns about vacancies and the legality of regularizing daily-wage employees. The Tribunal's order, according to the petitioner, effectively bypassed adjudication on individual claims and collapsed multiple actions into a generic direction for administrative action. The Government Pleader had submitted that the matters were pending before the Cabinet or Local Self Government Department, so the Tribunal's order directed consideration of the seventh respondent’s resolution and objections within four months. The High Court observed that no merits were determined in the impugned order, but it did not strike down the scheme; rather, it noted that the decision must follow the Umadevi doctrine, as laid down by the Supreme Court. On this basis, the court held there is no illegality warranting interference and dismissed the petition.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Umadevi doctrine (regularization of daily-wage workers) — Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Tribunal's disposal of OA No.69/15 did not address the substantive merits of the drivers' claims; instead it directed the Government to decide on pending representations and to pass final orders regarding the sanctioning of posts and regularization for those engaged on daily wages for many years. The petitioner argues that the order effects are uncertain and could undermine the drivers' rights, and raises concerns about the proper locus of a single petitioner to challenge actions affecting multiple gram panchayats. It asserts that regularization is not merely an administrative housekeeping issue, but a substantive claim that requires a standing adjudication. The petitioner also highlights that eight drivers across eight panchayats had joined together in a single OA and that the impugned order fails to supply individual determination. The petitioner requests quashing of the impugned order to the extent it binds the 7th respondent’s resolution and directs consideration, arguing that the order should have contained determinations on merits based on law and evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal's order properly directed the Government to consider the pending representations and to decide on sanctions and regularization after examining the seventh respondent’s resolution and objections. They contend that the Cabinet was already taking steps; the matter is under consideration by the Local Self Government Department and Law Department, and the Tribunal's directions were consistent with those processes. They argue that the order was not a meritless adjudication but a procedural directive designed to expedite resolution, and that no illegality or perversity was evident in it. They maintain that the court should give deference to executive action in matters of cadre creation and regularization, particularly in complex budgetary contexts.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.[(2006) 4 SCC 1]PositiveCited as the Supreme Court doctrine guiding regularization/tenure issues; used by the court to emphasize adherence to constitutional/statutory parameters in regularization decisions.

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 Vazhakulam Grama Panchayat v. Anwar V.K. 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/28TH POUSHA 1938** **OP(KAT).No. 27 of 2017 (Z)** **--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA(EKM) 69/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31-10-2016** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHAKKULAM-686 670,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.N.RAJESH** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** ## **1. ANWAR V.K.,** **AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED,WORKING AS DRIVER, KADUNGALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA-683 110,RESIDING AT VELLUKUZHIL HOUSE, WEST KADUNGALLOOR.P.O,ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. K.E.MUJEEB,** **AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.EBRAHIM,WORKING AS DRIVER VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,VAZHAKKULAM, ERNAKULAM-686 670,RESIDING AT KUZHIYIL HOUSE, MARAMPALLY.P.O,ALUVA-683 107,ERNAKULAM.** ## **3. K.D.VARGHESE,** **AGED 44 YEARS,S/O DEVASSI,WORKING AS DRIVER, KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KEEZHMADU-683 112,RESIDING AT KOIKKARA HOUSE,ERUMATHALA.P.O, KEEZHMADU,ERNAKULAM.** ## **4. PAULSON.P.A,** **AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.P.P.AUGUSTINE,WORKING AS DRIVER MEENANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,MEENANGADI-673 593, RESIDING AT PUNNORKOTTU HOUSE,NADAVAYAL.P.O, KATTALI KAVALA,PANAMARAM(VIA),WAYANAD,KERALA.** ## **OP(KAT).No. 27 of 2017 (Z)** ## **5. ABDUL AZEEZ.P,** **AGED 42 YEARS,S/O MUHAMMED,WORKING AS DRIVER AMBALAVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,AMBALAVAYAL-673 593, WAYANAD,RESIDING AT PALOTH HOUSE,AMBALAVAYAL.P.O, AYIRAMKOLLY,WAYANAD.** ## **6. C.A.SATHYAN,** **AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY,WORKING AS DRIVER VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR-680 303,RESIDING AT CHEMMANDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELUPADAM.P.O,THRISSUR.** ## **7. BIJU.K.V,** **AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.VELAYUDHAN.K.K,WORKING AS DRIVER, CHERPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,CHERPU,THRISSUR-680 561, RESIDING AT KOLLAYIL HOUSE,CHERPU.P.O, PERUMBILLYSERY WEST,THRISSUR.** ## **8. SUDHAN.A.K,** **AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN,WORKING AS DRIVER MATTATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ,MATTATHOOR,THRISSUR-680692,RESIDING AT ALON HOUSE,VALLIKULANGARA.P.O, THRISSUR.** ## **9. STATE OF KERALA,** ## **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** ## **10. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, MUSEUM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **11. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.** ## **12. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KALPETTA.P.O,WAYANAD DISTRICT-673121.** ## **13. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE.P.O,THRISSUR-680003.** **14. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KADUNGALLOOR,ALUVA-683110,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** ## **15. KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KEEZHMADU-683112,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **16. MEENANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MEENANGADI,WAYANAD-673591,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **17. AMBALAVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AMBALAVAYAL,WAYANAD-673593,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **OP(KAT).No. 27 of 2017 (Z)** ## **18. VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,** ## **VARANDARAPPILLY,THRISSUR-680303,REPRESENTED BY ITS** ## **SECRETARY.** ## **19. CHERPU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,** **CHERPU,THRISSUR-680561,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** ## **20. MATTATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,** **MATTATHOOR,THRISSUR-680692,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **R BY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R9 TO 14 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP(KAT).No. 27 of 2017 (Z)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.(EKM)NO.69/15 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 4.1.15.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN M.A.1842/16 IN O.A.(EKM)69/15 DATED 29.6.16** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IN M.A.1842/16 IN O.A. (EKM)NO.69/15 ON 7.7.16** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONER IN O.A.(EKM) NO.69/15 ON 7.7.16** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER SUBMITTED TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY 7TH RESPONDENT ON 17.7.16** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)NO.69/15 DATED 31.10.2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 30.11.99** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 6.12.99 TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN C.M.P.52639/99 IN O.P.30899/99 DATED 9.12.99 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER PANCHAYAT ON 10.12.99** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10.12.99 APPOINTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS DRIVER ON DAILY WAGES** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.30899/99 DATED 27.10.05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **NIL** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE SHG/ ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(KAT)No.27 of 2017** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Ravikumar, J.** The challenge in this original petition is against an order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (EKM)-69/2015 dated 31.10.2016. The petitioner herein was the 7[th] respondent in the said original application. Sri. K.E. Mujeeb, the 2[nd] applicant therein was a driver engaged on daily wage basis by the petitioner herein. Contending that he has been working as such for more than 10 years and that by itself would reveal the existence of vacancy in the post of driver in the petitioner panchayat and also raising grievance against non-sanctioning of post of drivers and his non-regularization that he filed the said O.A. alongwith other similarly situated drivers working in different Grama Panchayats. The said Original Application alongwith another Original Application on the same subject O.P.(KAT)No.27 of 2017 2 matter were considered together by the Tribunal and it resulted in the impugned common order. As per the said order the Tribunal disposed of the original applications with a direction to the 1[st] respondent therein to take a decision on the pending representations from the applicants and to pass final orders thereon. It is challenging the said order to the extent it pertains to O.A.(EKM) 69/2015 that the captioned Original Petition has been filed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal would reveal that while disposing the original applications no finding touching the merits of the claims or contentions raised by the applicants were made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the petitions only with a direction to the Government, the first respondent in that appeal to take a decision and issue final orders with regard to the sanctioning of posts of Drivers and regularization of those drivers whom they have been engaging on daily wage basis O.P.(KAT)No.27 of 2017 3 for the past several years. It is also to be noted that it was specifically directed to consider the resolution passed by the 7[th] respondent (the petitioner herein) and the objections raised therein before passing such orders. A time limit of four months was also fixed for such consideration. Evidently, the petitioner's grievances pertains only to the extent it applies to the 2[nd] applicant therein viz., the 2[nd] respondent herein. In ground 'G' it is stated by the petitioner that eight persons engaged by eight different panchayats joined together to file a single application and they were having different cause of actions. In such circumstances, how can the petitioner seek for quashment of the order in its entirety in the absence of materials to show that he was legally authorized to mount challenge against on behalf of all the others, as well. As noticed hereinbefore a mere glance at the impugned order would reveal that the Tribunal has not made any observation or finding with respect to the entitlement of the second applicant for regularization. The Tribunal only directed to O.P.(KAT)No.27 of 2017 4 consider his claim of regularization as well based on his representation. With respect to the question of sanctioning of posts of drivers even the petitioner did not have a case that the Government lack the power to sanction the post of drivers. It is apposite in this context to note that the original applications were disposed of with such a direction based on a submission made by the learned Government Pleader before the Tribunal that those matters are pending consideration before the Government. It is evident from the impugned order that the learned Government Pleader submitted before the Tribunal that the matter came up for consideration before the Cabinet and it was initially forwarded to the Law Department and presently it is pending consideration before the Local Self Government Department. Taking note of the fact that even while disposing of the original application as above, the Tribunal has specifically directed for consideration of the resolution passed by the 7[th] respondent, the petitioner herein and also the objections raised therein, we do not find any reason to 5 O.P.(KAT)No.27 of 2017 interfere with the impugned Ext.P6 order. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order warranting an interference. Certainly, such consideration can effected only by giving due consideration to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1]** . In such circumstances, this original petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR** **JUDGE** Sd/- **K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE** //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/