IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 38989 of 2003(N) 1. M.G.SASIKUMAR, DY. MARKETING MANAGER ... Petitioner 2. K.BABURAJAN PILLAI, SRM, GRADE I, Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIRE ... Respondent 2. M VIJAYAN, BUSINESS MANAGER IN CHARGE, 3. P.RAVINDRAN, MANAGER, COIRFED CENTRAL 4. K.K.ROAH, SHOW ROOM MANAGER, COIRFED, 5. P.S.RAJIVAN, MANAGER, COIRFED, 6. C.SUDHAKARAN, MANAGER, COIRFED, 7. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR FOR 8. THE SECRETARY, For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN For Respondent :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :26/06/2009 O R D E R ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38989 OF 2003 (N) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1, P3 and
P5 and the main grievance is against Exts.P1 and P5.
2. Petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 are presently
employed under the 1st respondent. They all had entered service
of separate industrial societies, which were all amalgamated and
the 1st respondent society was formed. Such amalgamation was in
3. After the amalgamation, seniority list of the employees
were published, for the first time, on 8/7/2001. It is stated that
the party respondents herein, objected to the seniority and on the
directions issued by this Court in OP 32902/01, the 2nd respondent
considered their objections and issued Ext.P1 finalising the
seniority. The petitioners were aggrieved by Ext.P1 and they filed
Ext.P2 appeal before the 7th respondent. During its pendency,
following Ext.P1 seniority list, postings were ordered by Ext.P3.
Later on, their appeal was considered by the 7th respondent and
Ext.P5 order was issued rejecting the contentions. It is in this
background the writ petition is filed.
4. Impugning the seniority assigned to respondents 2 to
6, counsel for the petitioners contended that irrespective of their
earlier entry in the service of the industrial societies as compared
to the petitioners, as they had lost seniority on account of various
disciplinary proceedings against them, they should be deemed to
be juniors to the petitioners. It is stated that by Ext.P4, this
contention was urged and supporting materials were produced
before the 7th respondent, and that the 7th respondent has not
adverted to their contentions. It is on this basis, the petitioner
impugns Exts.P1 and P5. Even if there were proceedings against
the aforesaid respondents, unless those proceedings have
resulted in forfeiture of their seniority, the respondents are
entitled to carry their seniority in full. However, a reading of
Ext.P4 relied on by the petitioners to contend that the
respondents 2 to 6 are not entitled to seniority over them shows
that none of the proceedings have resulted in the forfeiture of the
seniority of the aforesaid respondents.
5. Therefore, petitioners have not succeeded in
establishing that the respondents have lost their seniority in
service, for the petitioners to claim seniority over respondents 2
to 6. If that be so, the petitioners have not made out a case for
interference with Exts.P1 or P5.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE