{"id":153918,"date":"2008-05-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-16T07:05:29","modified_gmt":"2017-11-16T01:35:29","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 170 of 2007()\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT),\n3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. N.O. JOSE, S\/O. OUSEPH,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :23\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.\n               =====================\n                       W.A.No.170 of 2007\n               =====================\n\n            Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008.\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ravindran,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.22415 of<\/p>\n
2005. The sole respondent is the writ petitioner. The brief facts<\/p>\n
of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     2. The writ petitioner entered service as Driver Grade II in<\/p>\n
the Civil Supplies Department on 4.9.1986.      By Ext.P1 dated<\/p>\n
25.11.1998, the State Government revised the scales of pay of<\/p>\n
government      employees     in    implementation      of    the<\/p>\n
recommendations of the pay revision committee.       The revised<\/p>\n
scales of pay came into force with effect from 1.3.1997. Prior to<\/p>\n
Ext.P1, Driver Grade II was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.825-<\/p>\n
1450 and Driver Grade I was in the scale of pay of Rs.1050-<\/p>\n
1660. By Ext.P1 it was revised to Rs.2750-4625 and Rs.3350-<\/p>\n
5275 respectively. The revised scale of pay of Driver Grade II<\/p>\n
sanctioned as per Ext.P1 was again modified as Rs.3050-5230<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                       -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
by Ext.P2 order dated 12.7.1999. Ext.P1 pay revision order also<\/p>\n
contemplates grant of first time bound higher grade promotion on<\/p>\n
completion of 10 years of service in the entry post, a second<\/p>\n
higher grade promotion on completion of either 8 years of service<\/p>\n
in the first promoted post or a total service of 18 years in the<\/p>\n
entry post and the first regular promotion post\/time bound higher<\/p>\n
grade together, whichever is earlier, a third higher grade<\/p>\n
promotion on completion of 23 years of total service and a fourth<\/p>\n
time bound higher grade to Class IV employees on completion of<\/p>\n
30 years of service. As per Ext.P1, Driver Grade II in the revised<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Rs.3050-5230 was entitled to first time bound<\/p>\n
higher grade promotion on completion of 10 years of service, in<\/p>\n
the scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275 which is the revised scale of<\/p>\n
pay of Driver Grade I.\n<\/p>\n
     3. As noticed earlier, the revised scale of pay of Rs.2750-<\/p>\n
4625 sanctioned to Driver Grade II by Ext.P1 was modified by<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 as Rs.3050-5230. Paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                       -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
     “PAY SCALES OF NON-CLERICAL TECHNICAL<\/p>\n
     STAFF<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           6. With a view to improve the Pay Scales of<\/p>\n
     certain Categories of non-clerical technical staff<\/p>\n
     Government have decided to increase their Scales of<\/p>\n
     Pay to the next higher Scale at the entry level. The<\/p>\n
     changes in Scales made accordingly in respect of<\/p>\n
     certain categories are shown against the designations<\/p>\n
     in Annexure-II. Finance Department will define and<\/p>\n
     identify the other eligible designations in this<\/p>\n
     Category non-clerical technical staff. Orders on this<\/p>\n
     will be issued thereafter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
Paragraph 5(6) of Ext.P1 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “(6) If there is a promotion post in respect of<\/p>\n
     the categories of posts (entry) coming under pay<\/p>\n
     range from Rs.2610-3680 to Rs.5800-9425 and its<\/p>\n
     scale of pay is higher than the time bound higher<\/p>\n
     grade proposed above, then the qualified incumbent<\/p>\n
     will be given the scale of pay of the promotion post in<\/p>\n
     the direct line of promotion as time bound higher<\/p>\n
     grade.    While assigning higher grade only qualified<\/p>\n
     hands     ie.  those   possessing    the  qualification<\/p>\n
     prescribed for the promotion post will get the scales<\/p>\n
     of pay of regular promotion posts. Unqualified hands<\/p>\n
     will be allowed the next higher scale of pay above<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                       -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      that of the scale of pay of the post held at that time,<\/p>\n
      in the standard scales of pay.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4. Paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 extracted above, states that with a<\/p>\n
view to improve the pay scales of certain categories of non-<\/p>\n
clerical technical staff, the government have decided to increase<\/p>\n
their scales of pay to the next higher scale at the entry level. It<\/p>\n
is further stated that the changes in scales made accordingly in<\/p>\n
respect of certain categories are shown against the designations<\/p>\n
in Annexure-II. From Annexure-II in Ext.P1, it is seen that the<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Driver Grade II was revised from Rs.825-1450 to<\/p>\n
Rs.2750-4625, while the scale of pay of Driver Grade I was<\/p>\n
revised from Rs.1050-1660 to Rs.3350-5275. On the terms of<\/p>\n
paragraph 6, non-clerical technical staff were entitled to an<\/p>\n
increase in the scale of pay to the next higher scale at the entry<\/p>\n
level. Therefore, the scale of pay of Driver Grade II was revised<\/p>\n
from Rs.825-1450 to Rs.2750-4625. Later, by Ext.P2 government<\/p>\n
order dated 12.7.1999 the scale of pay of Driver Grade II was<\/p>\n
enhanced from Rs.2750-4625 to Rs.3050-5230, the next higher<\/p>\n
scale of pay recognised in Ext.P1.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Pursuant to Ext.P1 as modified by Ext.P2, the writ<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                       -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner was granted first time bound higher grade promotion<\/p>\n
on completion of 10 years of service. On the premise that the<\/p>\n
writ petitioner, who was Driver Grade II in the revised scale of<\/p>\n
pay of Rs.3050-5230 with effect from 1.3.1997 was entitled to<\/p>\n
the first time bound higher grade promotion in the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.4000-6090, the first time bound higher grade promotion was<\/p>\n
sanctioned to him with effect from 1.3.1997 and his pay as on<\/p>\n
1.3.1997 was fixed in the minimum of the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.4000-6090. The writ petitioner was also sanctioned periodical<\/p>\n
increments with effect from 1.12.1997. Ext.P3 is the proceedings<\/p>\n
issued    in  that   regard   by      the  Taluk  Supply   Officer,<\/p>\n
Kothamangalam.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The grant of first time bound higher grade promotion to<\/p>\n
the writ petitioner was objected to by the audit party on the<\/p>\n
ground that the grant of first time bound higher grade promotion<\/p>\n
in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090 is erroneous and that the<\/p>\n
writ petitioner was eligible for first time bound higher grade<\/p>\n
promotion only in the scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275. The fixation<\/p>\n
of the writ petitioner’s pay with effect from 1.3.1997 in the scale<\/p>\n
of pay of Rs.4000-6090 was held to be incorrect. Pursuant to the<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                         -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
objections raised by the audit party, the Taluk Supply Officer,<\/p>\n
Kochi where the writ petitioner was then working, issued Ext.P4<\/p>\n
proceedings dated 23.11.2000 refixing the writ petitioner’s pay<\/p>\n
and ordered recovery of the excess salary drawn by him. It was<\/p>\n
also ordered that from the month of November, 2000 onwards,<\/p>\n
his salary will be claimed and disbursed in the revised scale of<\/p>\n
pay of Rs.3350-5275 .\n<\/p>\n
      7. The writ petitioner thereupon filed O.P.No.35589 of 2000<\/p>\n
challenging Ext.P4 mainly on the ground that he was not heard<\/p>\n
before Ext.P4 was passed.         By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on<\/p>\n
8.1.2001, this Court quashed Ext.P4 (which was produced and<\/p>\n
marked as Ext.P3 therein) and directed the Taluk Supply Officer<\/p>\n
to pass a fresh order after affording the writ petitioner an<\/p>\n
opportunity of being heard. The Taluk Supply Officer thereafter<\/p>\n
passed Ext.P6 order dated 25.10.2004 holding that the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to first time bound higher grade promotion<\/p>\n
in the scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275 only and not in the scale of<\/p>\n
pay of Rs.4000-6090. The writ petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.33788 of 2004 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on<\/p>\n
25.11.2004 this Court directed the writ petitioner to submit a<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                       -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
detailed representation before the State Government and further<\/p>\n
directed the State Government to consider and pass orders<\/p>\n
thereon. This Court also directed that till the State Government<\/p>\n
passes orders on the writ petitioner’s representation, the<\/p>\n
recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance.          The writ<\/p>\n
petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P8 representation dated<\/p>\n
9.12.2004. By Ext.P9 order passed on 29.6.2005 the State<\/p>\n
Government rejected the writ petitioner’s request and held that<\/p>\n
he is not entitled to first time bound higher grade promotion in<\/p>\n
the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090. The State Government also<\/p>\n
rejected the writ petitioner’s contention that his pay has to be<\/p>\n
fixed applying paragraph 6 of Ext.P1, in the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.3350-5275.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The writ petitioner challenged Exts.P6 and P9 in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.22415 of 2005. By judgment delivered on 10.10.2006, the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, quashed Exts.P6<\/p>\n
and P9 and directed the appellants to fix the pay of the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090. It was held that<\/p>\n
the petitioner is entitled to draw basic pay in the aforesaid pay<\/p>\n
scale as the first time bound higher grade and that he is not<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                      -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
liable to refund any amount as directed in Exts.P6 and P9. The<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge also ordered that the monetary benefits<\/p>\n
arising out of the directions contained in the judgment shall be<\/p>\n
granted to the petitioner within two months on the petitioner<\/p>\n
producing a copy of the judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge, the respondents in the Writ Petition<\/p>\n
have preferred this Writ Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      9. We heard Sri.N.Manojkumar, the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader appearing for the appellants and Sri.Alexander Joseph,<\/p>\n
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants contended that the grant of time bound<\/p>\n
higher grade is governed by paragraph 5 of Ext.P1 and that<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 relied on by the writ petitioner does not<\/p>\n
confer on him any rights in that regard. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants submitted that paragraph 6 only justifies the<\/p>\n
reason for revision of pay ordered in Ext.P1 and that the scales of<\/p>\n
pay of Driver Grade II and certain other categories of<\/p>\n
government employees was thus revised by Ext.P2. The learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader submitted that the combined effect of<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 and P2 was that the scale of pay of Driver Grade II stood<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                        -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
revised from Rs.825-1450 (pre-revised) to Rs.3050-5230 which,<\/p>\n
on the terms of Ext.P1 is the next higher scale of pay<\/p>\n
immediately above Rs.2750-4625, in which scale Driver Grade II<\/p>\n
was initially placed as per Ext.P1.       The learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader submitted relying on paragraph 5(6) of Ext.P1 that as<\/p>\n
there is a promotion post of Driver Grade I in the revised scale of<\/p>\n
pay of Rs.3350-5275, a Driver Grade II, can claim first time<\/p>\n
bound higher grade promotion only in the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.3350-5275 and not in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090 as<\/p>\n
contended by the writ petitioner. The learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader submitted with reference to Table 1 in paragraph 5 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 that the scale of pay of Driver Grade II (modified as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P2) is Rs.3050-5230 coming within the aforesaid range and<\/p>\n
that as per the table the scale of pay of Driver Grade I which is<\/p>\n
the promotion post of Driver Grade II is Rs.3350-5275 and that<\/p>\n
the writ petitioner is entitled to first time bound higher grade<\/p>\n
promotion only in the said scale of pay. It was submitted that it<\/p>\n
is only if the scale of pay of the promotion post is higher than the<\/p>\n
first time bound higher grade proposed in Ext.P1 that the<\/p>\n
petitioner can claim the scale of pay of the promotion post for the<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                      -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
first time bound higher grade promotion. It was pointed out that<\/p>\n
in the case on hand the scale of pay of the promotion post which<\/p>\n
is Driver Grade I, is only Rs.3350-5275, that it is not higher than<\/p>\n
the time bound higher grade proposed in Ext.P1 and therefore<\/p>\n
the writ petitioner is not entitled to time bound higher grade<\/p>\n
promotion in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090 as claimed by<\/p>\n
him.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Per contra, Sri.Alexander Joseph, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondent – writ petitioner reiterated his contentions and<\/p>\n
submitted that paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 is intended to grant<\/p>\n
additional benefit of higher pay and therefore the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Driver Grade II should be reckoned as Rs.3350-5275 and on that<\/p>\n
basis, the writ petitioner is entitled to first time bound higher<\/p>\n
grade promotion in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090.<\/p>\n
      11. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar.<\/p>\n
In our considered opinion, the claim of the writ petitioner is<\/p>\n
plainly untenable. Paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 no doubt states that<\/p>\n
with a view to improve the pay scales of certain categories of<\/p>\n
non-clerical technical staff, the government have decided to<\/p>\n
increase their scales of pay to the next higher scale at the entry<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                      -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
level.  It is also stated that the changes in the scales made<\/p>\n
accordingly in respect of certain categories are shown against the<\/p>\n
designation in Annexure-II. From Annexure-II, it is seen that the<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Driver Grade II stood revised from Rs.825-1450 to<\/p>\n
Rs.2750-4625 while that of Driver Grade I stood revised from<\/p>\n
Rs.1050-1660 to Rs.3350-5275. By Ext.P2, the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Driver Grade II was again revised to Rs.3050-5230. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the claim of the writ petitioner based on paragraph 6 to have his<\/p>\n
pay fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275 (which is the<\/p>\n
revised scale of pay of Driver Grade I sanctioned as per Ext.P1) is<\/p>\n
plainly untenable.   We are not persuaded to agree with the<\/p>\n
reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner was<\/p>\n
entitled to have his pay sanctioned as per Ext.P1 (Rs.2750-4625)<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs.3350-5275, the scale of pay of Driver Grade I.<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge has in our opinion failed to take note of<\/p>\n
the modification in the scale of pay of Driver Grade II, made as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P2 whereby the scale of pay of Driver Grade II was<\/p>\n
revised from Rs.2750-4625 to Rs.3050-5230. If as held by the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge, paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 entitles a Driver<\/p>\n
Grade II to have the same scale of pay as Driver Grade I<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                        -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
(Rs.3350-5275) it will lead to an anomalous situation where<\/p>\n
Driver Grade I and Driver Grade II will be in the same scale of<\/p>\n
pay.   One cannot overlook the fact that Driver Grade I is a<\/p>\n
promotion post for Driver Grade II. That being the position, the<\/p>\n
time first bound higher grade promotion can be granted to the<\/p>\n
writ petitioner only in terms of the provisions contained in<\/p>\n
paragraph 5 of Ext.P1 and applying the table therein.<\/p>\n
      12. From paragraph 5 of Ext.P1, it is evident that first time<\/p>\n
bound higher grade to employees placed in the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.3050-5230 can be sanctioned only in the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.3350-5275. Persons like the writ petitioner would be entitled<\/p>\n
on the terms of Ext.P1, to a second time bound higher grade in<\/p>\n
the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090 and a third time bound higher<\/p>\n
grade, if they are eligible, in the scale of pay of Rs.4600-7125. As<\/p>\n
rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, it is only if<\/p>\n
the scale of pay of the promotion post (in the case on hand,<\/p>\n
Driver Grade I) is higher than the time bound higher grade<\/p>\n
proposed in paragraph 5 of Ext.P1, that a Driver Grade II will be<\/p>\n
given the scale of pay of the promotion post in the direct line of<\/p>\n
promotion, as time bound higher grade. It is crystal clear from<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                       -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P1 that the scale of pay of Driver Grade I is only Rs.3350-<\/p>\n
5275. The petitioner has no case and the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
has also not held that the scale of pay of Driver Grade I is<\/p>\n
Rs.4000-6090. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot, on the<\/p>\n
terms of Ext.P1, claim or be granted first time bound higher<\/p>\n
grade promotion in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6090. On the<\/p>\n
other hand, the writ petitioner is entitled to first time bound<\/p>\n
higher grade promotion in the post of Driver Grade II only in the<\/p>\n
scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275 which is in fact, the scale of pay of<\/p>\n
the promotion post, namely, Driver Grade I.\n<\/p>\n
      13. In the instant case, the scale of pay of the promotion<\/p>\n
post is not higher than the time bound higher grade proposed in<\/p>\n
paragraph 5 of Ext.P1 and therefore the claim of the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner, found in his favour by the learned Single Judge is<\/p>\n
plainly untenable.     In our opinion, the stand taken by the<\/p>\n
appellants in Exts.P6 and P9 cannot be faulted. Paragraph 6 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 does not confer on the petitioner any right to claim higher<\/p>\n
pay than what is sanctioned under Ext.P1 as modified by Ext.P2.<\/p>\n
We accordingly hold that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit of fixation of pay as in Ext.P3. We therefore set aside the<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                     -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.22415 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
      14.   After the arguments were concluded, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner<\/p>\n
has not been given the second time bound higher grade<\/p>\n
promotion on completion of 18 years of service and that his<\/p>\n
retirement benefits have also not been disbursed. We make it<\/p>\n
clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not stand in the<\/p>\n
way of the writ petitioner claiming second time bound higher<\/p>\n
grade promotion in terms of Ext.P1 or subsequent government<\/p>\n
orders regarding grant of higher grade, if he is eligible for the<\/p>\n
same.   We also make it clear that     such higher grade if not<\/p>\n
already granted, shall be granted expeditiously and in any case<\/p>\n
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment. We also direct the appellants to take steps to fix and<\/p>\n
pay the retirement benefits payable to the writ petitioner within<\/p>\n
the said period. Needless to say, the appellants will be entitled<\/p>\n
to deduct the excess payments made to the writ petitioner<\/p>\n
pursuant to the fixation in Ext.P3, from the retirement benefits<\/p>\n
payable to him or the money payable to him on the grant of<\/p>\n
WA 170\/07                    -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
second time bound higher grade promotion on completion of 18<\/p>\n
years of service.\n<\/p>\n
     The Writ Appeal is allowed as above. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         J.B.Koshy,
\n                                         Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                         P.N.Ravindran,
\n                                         Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ess 28\/5<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 170 of 2007() 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Petitioner 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), 3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, Vs 1. N.O. JOSE, S\/O. OUSEPH, … Respondent For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER For Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-16T01:35:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T01:35:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3003,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-16T01:35:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-16T01:35:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T01:35:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008"},"wordCount":3003,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008","name":"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-16T01:35:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-n-o-jose-on-23-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs N.O. Jose on 23 May, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153918","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}