IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 671 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE COMMANDANT, KERALA ARMED POLICE
3. THE SUPERINENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR
4. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE,
Vs
1. PREMAVALSALAN
... Respondent
2. PRADEEPAN, DRIVER HC 4049 AR CAMP KANNUR
3. JOSEPH.K.T.
4. PAVITHRAN.D.K.
5. PUSHPAJAKSHAN,
6. SASIDHARNA,
7. ABDUL RAF NISTAR,
8. RAVEEVAN.C.P.
9. BABURAJ.K.P.
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :11/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
=====================
W.A.Nos.671 & 1053 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The writ petitioners in these cases are working as Police
Drivers (Head Constables) in the armed reserve camp, Kannur.
By Ext.P5 order, the Government excluded the training period
from the service. The learned single Judge based on an
executive order dated 23.4.2003 issued by the Director General
of Police set aside Ext.P5. The executive order dated 23.4.2004
reads as follows:
“In the above circumstances the period of
inservice training (imparted soon after recruitment)
will have to be counted as ‘Service’ for all purposes
(except for probation). Therefore it is now clarified
that the period of training of directly recruited drivers
will be counted for the purpose of increment and
higher grade.
Cases of those Drivers whose increments and
higher grades were revised in accordance with PHQ
letter dated 8.5.2000 (referred 2nd above) will be
refixed as ordered above. Meanwhile the Govt. is
WA 671/08 -: 2 :-
being addressed to amend para 8 of the Rules in
respect of probation.”
Relying on that, the learned single Judge held that the service
training undergone should be treated as part of the service.
2. The Government filed this appeal. In the appeal
memorandum, the Government relied on the decision of a
Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v.
Thirumeni M.S. and others 2007 ILR (4) Kerala 374. That
judgment was mainly on the question of time bar. Secondly it
was relating to Police Constables. Even in the case of Police
personnel a Division Bench of this Court in Lekshmanan v.
State of Kerala – 1995(1) K.L.T. 115 found that inservice
training rendered is to be taken as service. In appeal, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the above position in Civil
Appeal No.2018 of 2000. The Supreme Court observed as
follows:
“The High Court has consistently taken the view
that the period of training undergone by the
respondent should be treated as period spent on
duty for the purpose of scale of pay, increments and
other consequential benefits. This view was
WA 671/08 -: 3 :-
expressed by the High Court in the case of
Lakshmanan v. State of Kerala – 1995 (1) KLT 115
and that decision in turn follows other decisions in
Louis v. Kerala Public Service Commission –
1965 KLT 1282 and Haridasan v. State of Kerala –
1987 (2) KLT 486. As this has been the consistent
view and the orders in those cases not having been
challenged before this court, we do not think that it is
a fit case for our interference under article 136 of the
Constitution. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”
The learned Government Pleader relied on the decision of the
Division Bench in Nandanan T.V. v. Jyotish Kumar T.V. and
others – 2004 (2)ILR Kerala 161. In that case the period of
training was not treated as duty as it was a pre-appointment
training.
3. Rule 7 of the Special Rules in this case provides as
follows:
“Training:- Every persons appointed under
these rules by direct recruitment, shall undergo
inservice training for a period of 6 months and every
persons other than Police Constable appointed under
these rules by transfer shall undergo inservice
training for a period of 3 months in the District
WA 671/08 -: 4 :-
Armed Reserve/Armed Police Battalions/Police
Training College/Police Training Schools .”
Therefore, the rule clearly states that the persons appointed shall
undergo ‘inservice training’ for a period of six months. Of course,
Rule 8 provides that probation will start after training. But
inservice training cannot be termed as pre-appointment training
and therefore inservice training should be counted in the service.
The learned Government Pleader also relied on a clarification
issued by the Government on 14.12.2007. By an executive
order, rules cannot be changed. We are bound by the decision of
the Apex Court on the same point. Since the Special Rules
specifically say that it is ‘inservice training’, the Government is
bound to consider the training period of the writ petitioners as
service for the purpose of granting benefits.
The Writ Appeals are dismissed.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 12/6