High Court Kerala High Court

M.Remadevi vs The Secretary To Government on 12 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.Remadevi vs The Secretary To Government on 12 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1373 of 2010()


1. M.REMADEVI, AGED 48,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

5. SHRI M.K.VENU, COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

6. SMT.A.LALITHA, COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,

7. SMT.P.T.GEETHA, COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR

8. SMT.M.USHAKUMARI,

9. SHRI S.SUNILKUMAR, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

10. SMT.M.K.SREELATHA, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

11. SMT.C.M.SUMATHI,UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

12. SHRI P.S.SURESH BABU,

13. SMT.C.S.ASHA, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

14. SHRI C.SIVADASAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

15. SHRI K.J.JOY, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

16. SHRI T.U.CHACKO, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

17. SHRI P.SURENDRAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

18. SHRI P.E.SAJI, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

19. SMT.K.SUJATHA, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

20. SHRI D.RAVI, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

21. SHRI P.A.PRADEEPKUMAR,

22. SHRI V.ANIL, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

23. SMT.M.P.RADHA, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :12/08/2010

 O R D E R
        J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

                    -------------------------------

                      W.A.No.1373 of 2010

                    -------------------------------

           Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Ravindran, J.

The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.23802 of 2010. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P5

final seniority list of Upper Division Clerks in the Commercial

Taxes Department. The learned Single Judge held that the

petitioner has an effective alternate remedy under Rule 27(B) of

Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R. Accordingly, the writ petition was

dismissed.

2. The appellant entered service as L.D.Typist. In

course of time, she was promoted as U.D.Typist by Ext.P3 order

dated 6.3.2008. Still later, by Ext.P6 order dated 9.4.2010, she

was temporarily promoted as Commercial Taxes Inspector. At

that point of time, the final seniority list of UD Typists/UD Clerks

in the Commercial Taxes Department had not been prepared,

but a provisional seniority list evidenced by Ext.P4 was in force.

W.A.No.1373/2010

2

It was based on the seniority in that list that the petitioner was

temporarily promoted.

3. In Ext.P4 provisional seniority list, the petitioner

was ranked as Sl.No.86. It appears some of her colleagues in

the same department objected to the rank and seniority

assigned to her. When the seniority list was finalised by Ext.P5,

the aforesaid objections were accepted and the petitioner was

ranked as Sl.No.200. The instant writ petition was thereupon

filed.

4. When the writ appeal came up for hearing today in

the forenoon session, the learned Government Pleader was

directed to get instructions as to whether pursuant to the

publication of the final seniority list, an order of reversion has

been issued. When the writ appeal was taken up in the post

lunch session, the learned Government Pleader made available

to us a copy of the order dated 5.8.2006 issued by the Joint

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum, by which the

W.A.No.1373/2010

3

appellant was reverted to the category of U.D. Clerk with

immediate effect and was allotted to Deputy Commissioner,

Palakkad for suitable posting.

5. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials

on record that the appellant is aggrieved by the rank and

seniority assigned to her in Ext.P5 seniority list, as a result of

which she is now faced with an order of reversion. As rightly

held by the learned single Judge, Rule 27(B) of Part II of K.S.

& S.S.R entitles the petitioner to move the Government seeking

redressal of that grievance and the Government are also

empowered under the said rules to look into the said grievance

and to set right to the injustice, if any, caused to the appellant.

The period of limitation prescribed is within 6 months from the

date of publication of the final seniority list. In the instant case,

the final seniority list was published recently only on 20.7.2010.

The period of limitation is not yet over. Further, the rank and

seniority which the appellant is entitled to be given, can be

W.A.No.1373/2010

4

decided only after considering the objections raised by various

parties. It is evident from the order dated 5.8.2010 that the

Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has ordered reversion

of the petitioner to the category of U.D.Clerk. At that point of

time, the petitioner was working provisionally as Commercial

Tax Inspector. By the order dated 5.8.2010, a substitute has

not been appointed in her place. In such circumstances, we are

of the considered opinion that status quo as on today should be

maintained for a period of two months from today, in order to

enable the appellant to move the Government seeking redressal

of her grievance. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal

with the following directions.

The appellant shall, within a period of two weeks from

today, file an appropriate representation before the State

Government in terms of Rule 27(B) of Part II of K.S. & S.S.R.

The Government shall on receipt of the said representation issue

notice to the persons who will be affected by the outcome of the

W.A.No.1373/2010

5

representation, furnish them with copies of the representation,

hear the appellant as well as the said persons and take an

appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, and at any

rate, within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the

representation. Until such time, the status quo as on today in so

far as it relates to the appellant shall be maintained. The

contentions raised by the appellant on the merits are kept open.

J.CHELAMESWAR,
Chief Justice

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.

nj.