Loading...

M.G.Sasikumar vs The Kerala State Co-Operative … on 26 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.G.Sasikumar vs The Kerala State Co-Operative … on 26 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

1979.

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

WPC 38989/03
:2 :

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

WPC 38989/03
:3 :

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
Rp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information