The Rubber Board, vs Leda Pavithran,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 03, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1399584

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1399584
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman
Decided On: Jan 03, 2023
Case Number: RP/1062/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Rubber Board,

Respondent

Leda Pavithran,

Excerpt

.....submitted that this court had directed that order shall be passed after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents and the direction was to the 1st respondent to consider the issue. 2.having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, i notice that the specific case of the rubber board in the counter affidavit was that it was on the basis of the directions issued by the 1st respondent that exhibit p11order had been passed. this fact is specifically noted inparagraph 4 of the judgment. it was on finding that exhibit p11 order passed by the 2nd respondent did not advert to the specific contentions of the petitioner that itwas set aside. therefore, a meaningful direction could have been issued only to the 1st respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent and to pass a reasoned order in the light of the office memoranda and the circulars issued by the 1 st respondent. the contentions of the review petitioner that since the order set aside was one passed by the rubber board, the direction could have been only to the rubber board to re-consider the issue is totally untenable, in viewof the fact it was the rubber board's specific case that the directions had been issued on the basis of the competent orders of the 1st respondent. 3.in the above view of the matter, i am of the opinion that a proper consideration of the issue can be done only by the 1st respondent. it is clarified that the direction contained in the judgment is to the 1 st respondent to consider the contentions and to pass an appropriate order in the matter. review petition is ordered accordingly. sd/- anu sivaraman, judge sj

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 RP NO. 1062 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20334/2017 REVIEW PETITIONER: THE RUBBER BOARD, P.B. NO. 1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. V.ABRAHAM MARKOS ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS ISAAC THOMAS P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 LEDA PAVITHRAN, AGED 45 YEARS SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT BIOTECHNOLOGY DIVISION, R. R. II, RUBBER BOARD, RUBBER BOARD P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 009. 2 K. R. HARIKUMAR, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT CENTRAL LAB, R.R. II, RUBBER BOARD, RUBBER BOARD P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 009. 3 M. MINI, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT CENTRAL LAB, R.R. II, RUBBER BOARD, RUBBER BOARD P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 009.
4 SUJA D, JUNIOR SCIENTIFIC OFFICER, RUBBER BOARD, REGIONAL LAB, ADOOR. 5 DR. GEETHA JOSE, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT PATHOLOGY DIVISION, R. R. II, RUBBER BOARD, RUBBER BOARD P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 009. 6 MINIMOLE RAVINDRAN, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT GENOME ANALYSIS LABORATORY, R. R. II, RUBBER BOARD, RUBBER BOARD P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 009. 7 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 8 THE CHAIRMAN, THE RUBBER BOARD, P.B. NO. 1122, SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 002. BY ADV SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2023, THE COURT ON 03.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.1062 of 2022 in W.P.(C).No.20334 of 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023

Order

1.This review petition is filed seeking review of the

judgment on the ground that there is an error in the

mentioning of the pay scale of Senior Scientific Assistant

in the judgment. The said error stands corrected by order

dated 2.12.2022 in the correction petition filed by the writ petitioner. The further contention in the review petition is to the effect that since Exhibit P11 order, which has been set aside, was one rendered by the 2 nd respondent, the Rubber Board, the re-consideration ordered should be by the 2nd respondent and not by the Government. It is submitted that this Court had directed that order shall be passed after hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents and the direction was to the 1st respondent to consider the issue. 2.Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I notice that the specific case of the Rubber Board in the counter affidavit was that it was on the basis of the directions issued by the 1st respondent that Exhibit P11

order had been passed. This fact is specifically noted in

paragraph 4 of the judgment. It was on finding that Exhibit P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent did not advert to the specific contentions of the petitioner that it

was set aside. Therefore, a meaningful direction could have been issued only to the 1st respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent and to pass a reasoned order in the light of the office memoranda and the circulars issued by the 1 st respondent. The contentions of the review petitioner that since the order set aside was one passed by the Rubber Board, the direction could have been only to the rubber board to re-consider the issue is totally untenable, in view

of the fact it was the rubber board's specific case that the directions had been issued on the basis of the competent orders of the 1st respondent. 3.In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that a proper consideration of the issue can be done only by the 1st respondent. It is clarified that the direction contained in the judgment is to the 1 st respondent to consider the contentions and to pass an appropriate order in the matter. Review petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties The Rubber Board, vs Leda Pavithran, Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman