Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Kerala Staff Association v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/15TH CHAITHRA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 31300 of 2013 (J)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALAM STAFF ASSOCIATION, (REG. NO.07/10/04), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VSNL ROAD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI -682 037, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JOJY K. MATHEWS, AGED 39, S/O.K.P. MATHEWS.** **BY SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD,** **SRI.RAM MOHAN.G., SRI.MANU V., SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN.** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** **2. VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MYTHRI BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI -682 037.** **3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** **4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (AGRICULTURE), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** **5. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FINANCE), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** ## **WP(C).No. 31300 of 2013 (J)** **6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALAM, MYTHRI BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI -682 037.** - **ADDL. R7 TO R9 IMPLEADED** **7. ARUN KUMAR. T.V., DISTRICT MANAGER IN CHARGE, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALAKKAD.** **8. SHAMEER. T., ASSISTANT MANAGER, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL, TRAINING CENTRE, PADMASREE BUILDINGS, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **9. BABITHA. B., OFFICE ASSISTANT, VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL, PALAKKAD.** - **ADDL. R7 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/04/2017 IN I.A. NO.582/2014.** **R2 & R6 BY BY SRI. MAJNU KOMATH, SC. R1, R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR. R7, R8 & R9 BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.P.R.BANERJI.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.6756 OF 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 31300 of 2013 (J)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.997/13/AD DATED 06.06.2013.** **EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE DATED 06.11.2013.** **EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.387/14/AD DATED 24/02/2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** **ANNEXURE R2A COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 12/07/2013. ANNEXURE R2B COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/02/2014. ANNEXURE R2C COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 24/02/2014. ANNEXURE R2D COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 10/05/2012. ANNEXURE R2E COPY OF THE EXT.R2(D) MINUTES DATED 10/05/2012. ANNEXURE R2F COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 09/05/2013. ANNEXURE R2G COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27/06/2013.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.** ========================= W.P.(C) Nos.31300 of 2013 & 6756 of 2014 ========================== Dated this the 5[th] day of April, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** There are two writ petitions that I am considering jointly in this judgment. I deem it appropriate to dispose it of jointly because the challenge in these writ petitions are against the same order mounted on similar averments, assertions and claims. For the sake of convenience, I treat W.P.(C) No.6756/14 as lead case and all reference to parties and documents in this judgment will be as per the status available in that writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan and Sri.Shinod.G.P., the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council. 3. The challenge in these two writ petitions is against a recommendation made by the Government for amendment of the Staff Regulations relating to Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council. I see that on 22[nd] July, 2014, the learned Judge of this Court had passed the following order: W.P.(C) Nos.31300 of 2013 & con.case 2 “Heard Sri.K.Jayakumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Sri.S.M.Prasanth, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 6 and Sri.V.Vijulal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 3 to 5 on the interim relief prayed for in the writ petition. I have also perused the relevant files which were made available by the learned Senior Government Pleader. It is evident from the files made available by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Expert Committee was constituted pursuant to a meeting held under the chairmanship of the Honourable Minister for Agriculture to rectify the anomalies in the staff regulation of Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Keralam. Even assuming that the committee was properly constituted, it did not undertake such an exercise as directed in Ext.P1 Government order but considered individual grievances raised by employees of the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Keralam and issued orders and directions regarding such individual grievances. Ext.P2 report starts with the statement that the Government have constituted an Expert Committee to address the grievances of employees of the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Keralam. The Apex Court has in **Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji** (AIR 1952 SC 16) held that public orders, publicly made, must W.P.(C) Nos.31300 of 2013 & con.case 3 be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. In such circumstances, I am prima facie satisfied that the Expert Committee exceeded its brief and submitted a report in respect of a matter which it had not been asked to go into. In such circumstances, implementation of Ext.P2 report submitted by the Expert Committee consisting of the Chief Executive Officer, Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Keralam, Smt.Jai Mary John, Joint Secretary, Finance and Sri.S.Rajan, Joint Secretary, Agriculture, shall stand stayed.” 4. When these matters were taken up on 14[th] of March, 2017, I was told by the learned standing counsel for the Food Promotion Council that the Council was in the process of reconsidering the recommendations for amendment. When these matters were taken up today, the learned counsel says that the Council is willing and ready to act as per the existing Staff Regulations, namely, Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.6756/14. 5. I see that this Court had, by the interim order extracted above, already entered into a prima facie conclusion that the Expert Committee constituted by the Government had exceeded its brief because it was never asked to recommend amendments W.P.(C) Nos.31300 of 2013 & con.case 4 to the Staff Regulations. 6. After a detailed hearing of these matters today, I am certainly of the view that the prima facie opinion recorded by the learned Judge in the above extracted order is absolutely apposite and deserving to be confirmed. 7. In such circumstances, I am certain that the Expert Committee constituted by the Government have exceeded its brief in submitting Ext.P18 in W.P.(C)No.6756/14 (shown as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.31300/13) because the records ineluctably establish that the Committee was not asked to enter into such an exercise even by the Government. Since the Committee has made recommendations which it was never asked to do, I am certain that the impugned order in these writ petitions deserve to be quashed. 8. For such reasons and on a conspectus of all the pleadings on record and submissions made at the Bar, I quash Ext.P18 in W.P.(C) No.6756/14 (shown as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.31300/13) and direct the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council to act in conformity with the extant service Regulations which came into effect on 5[th] January, 2011, which is produced 5 W.P.(C) Nos.31300 of 2013 & con.case as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.6756/14. 9. The above having been directed, it is obvious and axiomatic that the Food Promotion Council is obligated by the terms of this judgment to consider all claims of the petitioners in accordance with Ext.P6 Staff Regulations, as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are thus ordered. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. stu Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE**