W.A. No. 1072 of 2012 in WP(C). 28771/2004. Case: M. Radhakrishnan Nair Vs The Secretary to Government. High Court of Kerala (India)

Case NumberW.A. No. 1072 of 2012 in WP(C). 28771/2004
CounselFor Appellant: B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, Adv. and For Respondents: Rinni Stephen Chamaparambil, Government Pleader
JudgesAshok Bhushan and A. M. Shaffique, JJ.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateJuly 22, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Kerala (India)

Judgment:

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 28771/2004, challenging judgment dated 21.11.2011 by which judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are: The appellant (referred to herein as 'writ petitioner') was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Education Department. Subsequently, he was appointed as Legal Assistant Grade-II in the Law Department in the Secretariat on 7.11.1980. He was promoted as Legal Assistant Grade-I on 28.1.1983. While working as Legal Assistant Grade-I, he applied to the Public Service Commission (PSC) for selection to the post of Block Development Officer under the method of appointment by transfer. PSC selected the petitioner and advised for appointment as Block Development Officer. The petitioner was appointed as Block Development Officer by order dated 29.4.1988. He joined duty as Block Development Officer on 2.5.1988. By order dated 23.12.1989, he was promoted in the Law Department as Section Officer. However, the petitioner continued to work as Block Development Officer. Promotion list dated 20.10.1998 was issued in the Law Department promoting Section Officers as Under Secretaries in which list, name of the petitioner was not included. The petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent to consider his case for promotion as Under Secretary. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 5.10.1998 to the Law Secretary to Government for reversion to the Law Department with consequential benefits. Petitioner's case for reversion was considered, but no final decision could be taken in his favour. Petitioner, in the meantime, was promoted as Assistant Development Commissioner in the Rural Development Department in the year 1998. The petitioner submitted further representation dated 19.10.2002 to the Minister for Revenue and Law for reversion to the Law Department. The petitioner received a letter dated 15.1.2003 intimating that his request cannot be considered in view of the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 14996/98. The petitioner submitted another representation on 2.2.2003 and thereafter filed W.P.(C). No. 14893 of 2004 before this Court seeking a direction to pass order in the matter of reversion of the petitioner to the Law Department with consequential benefits. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 7.6.2004, directing the second respondent therein, Secretary to Government, to consider the case of the petitioner. An order dated 8.7.2004 was issued confirming large number of Block Development Officers, in which list, name of the petitioner was also included. The State Government ultimately passed order dated 3.9.2004 in compliance with the judgment of this Court dated 7.6.2004 in W.P.(C). No. 14893 of 2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reversion to the Law Department. The Government held that since the petitioner is confirmed in the Rural Development Department, he cannot be reverted to the Law Department. The order dated 3.9.2004 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 28771 of 2004, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21.11.2011 giving rise to this Writ Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal, has submitted that under Rule 8 Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR), 1958, the petitioner had a right to be reverted to his parent department, but the State Government erroneously rejected his claim. He submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair v. Ram Mohan Nair (1998(1) KLT 766 (FB) had laid down that the benefit of Rule 8 Part II KS & SSR is available to the member of a service getting appointment in another service on the basis of applications invited by the Government. It is submitted that at the time when the petitioner had submitted representation in the year 1998, he was not confirmed in the Rural Development Department and his claim was rejected only on 3.9.2004. Hence, there was no impediment in reverting him to his parent department, i.e., Law Department. It is submitted that the judgment in the above Full Bench case has also been confirmed by the Apex Court by its decision reported in Ali M.K. v. State of Kerala [(2003)11 SCC 632]. It is submitted that the Government has accepted the case of similarly situated officials, who were granted benefit of reversion to the parent department. Reference has been made to the order dated 23.3.2010 issued by the Government in the case of P.N. Ramesh Raju.

4. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, without considering the entitlement of the petitioner to be reverted to parent department, has dismissed the Writ Petition, only on the ground that the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2005.

5. The learned Government Pleader rebutted the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the claim of the petitioner for reversion was rightly rejected by the Government. The petitioner having already confirmed in the Rural Development Department, had no right to be reverted to the Law Department. It is submitted that the Law Department was not the parent department of the petitioner, since he was initially appointed in the Education Department. It is submitted that the cases of officers, who claimed reversion to the parent department, were not applicable to the petitioner and in no manner help the petitioner.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. We have also perused the records.

7. The challenge in the Writ Petition by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT