Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PAVANAN. T., KOITHURUTHY HOUSE versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PAVANAN. T., KOITHURUTHY HOUSE v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 26712 of 2003(E) [2007] RD-KL 6619 (29 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26712 of 2003(E)

1. PAVANAN. T., KOITHURUTHY HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN

For Respondent :SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :29/03/2007

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

WP(C) Nos. 26712 & 37092 of 2003

Dated, this the 29th day of March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioners along with others were selected by PSC for appointment as Junior Assistant-cum-Cashier in KSEB. Based on advise by PSC some in the list were appointed. However KSEB did not fill up the entire vacancies on the ground that restructuring is contemplated to reduce staff strength. Pending restructuring, this Court passed orders directing KSEB to appoint those to whom advise was given by PSC including petitioners with freedom to retrench them, so that they can claim employment against future vacancies. Accordingly, petitioners were appointed and retrenched vide Ext.P3 in WPC 37092/2003. Thereafter it is admitted that later petitioners were appointed by KSEB on regular basis. The remaining question is only about seniority among those, who were appointed from the same PSC list. Petitioners have a case that retrenchment itself is illegal because at the time of their retrenchment those who were junior in service were retained. In any case, since retrenchment is over, all the remains is only fixation of seniority among the general category of employees who were W.P.(C)Nos. 26712 & 37092/2003 -Page numbers- selected by PSC through the common test and advised for appointment. The provision for seniority is clear because Rule 27 of KSSR provides for seniority based on date of advice by PSC, which is to be followed by KSEB irrespective of date of joining in service, retrenchment and rejoining under Court orders. Petitioners are free to point out the corrections required in seniority list, which KSEB will consider and make changes after hearing all the parties adversely affected. Hence, I direct KSEB to prepare seniority list based on the Rules without any delay, if not already done. These WPCs are disposed of as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

jg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.