High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
K.S.SONY, SECRETARY v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WA No. 2118 of 2005(B)  RD-KL 2528 (5 December 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWA No. 2118 of 2005(B)
1. K.S.SONY, SECRETARY,
2. K.PREMKUMAR, SECRETARY,
3. P.A.ANUJAN, SECRETARY,
4. C.P.SAJEEVAN, SECRETARY,
5. B.ABDUL FATHAH, SECRETARY,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
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
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
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
JUDGEks. TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGEWA.2118 & 2322/2005 -4-
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.