IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2118 of 2005(B)
1. K.S.SONY, SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
2. K.PREMKUMAR, SECRETARY,
3. P.A.ANUJAN, SECRETARY,
4. C.P.SAJEEVAN, SECRETARY,
5. B.ABDUL FATHAH, SECRETARY,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
3. P.D.JOSHY, HEAD CLERK,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :05/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ.
==============================
W.A.NOS.2118 & 2322 OF 2005
============================
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006
JUDGMENT
Abdul Gafoor,J.
These appeals are filed against the interim orders
passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.C.Nos.28528
& 28281/2005 wherein reversions of the appellants
have been challenged. The learned Single Judge did
not grant stay of reversions, but made it clear that
such reversion shall be subject to result of the writ
petitions. The appellants/writ petitioners have carried
the matter in these appeals seeking for stay of
reversion. When reversions are not stayed, exercising
the discretion vested in the learned Single Judge and in
case the writ petitions finally allowed, they can be
WA.2118 & 2322/2005 -2-
restored to the status quo ante or granted adequate
compensation as if they had not been reverted, such
discretion cannot be stated to be unjustified. In this
regard, conclusion No.2 reached in the decision of this
Court in K.S.Das v. State of Kerala,[1992(2)KLT
358(F.B.)] may be noticed. It reads:
“But this does not mean that the Division
Bench hearing the appeal against such
`orders’ will have to admit the appeal or
have to modify the impugned order or set
it aside the same in every case. There is
difference between the question whether
an appeal lies to a Division Bench and as to
the scope of interference. Normally,
discretionary orders are not interfered with
unless the impugned orders are without
jurisdiction, contrary to law, or are
perverse, and they also cause serious
prejudice to the parties in such a manner
that it might be difficult to restore the
status quo ante or grant adequate
compensation. The idea is to provide an
internal remedy in such cases without
WA.2118 & 2322/2005 -3-
compelling the parties to go all the way to
the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India or increase the burden
of that court unnecessarily.”
In the light of this decision, the interim order
passed in exercise of the discretion of the learned
single Judge cannot be interfered as if the original
petitions are allowed, the appellants can be restored to
their eligible positions with necessary benefit. Hence,
the writ appeals are dismissed. We make it clear that
in case the writ petitions are allowed, the appellants
are entitled to all pay and allowances as if they were
not reverted.
Sd/-
K.A.ABDULGAFOOR
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
ks. TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE
WA.2118 & 2322/2005 -4-