Govt Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Delay Or Inaction: Kerala High Court

“A subsequent change of the Krishi Bhavan to another premises, the sweeping area of which is allegedly less than 100 sq.m., would not disentitle the sanctioning of the post and the consequent regularisation of the applicant, to which he was otherwise entitled to, as on the date of Annexure-A2 G.O., as evident from Annexure-A3. Inasmuch as the Government chose to sat over the proposal and delayed the same, the Government cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own inaction.”

The respondent was working as a part-time sweeper in Krishi Bhavan since 2002. A Government Order dated November 25, 2005, permitted sanctioning and regularization of the post of part-time sweeper if the sweeping area of the premises extended a hundred square meters. As the respondent satisfied the afore condition, the Agricultural Officer submitted the proposal for sanctioning and regularizing the post of the respondent. The proposal was submitted in 2006.

The Government did not pass any orders on the proposal. The respondent preferred an original application before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal for sanctioning his post. The Tribunal held that the government was bound to sanction the post of the respondent as a part-time sweeper, against which the Government has preferred the present appeal before the High Court.

The Government submitted that the post could not be sanctioned as Krishi Bhavan, Kalady had been moved to a new premise in 2006. The Government submitted that since the area of the new premises was less than a hundred square meters, the post of part-time sweeper could not be sanctioned.

The Court found that according to the respondent, the Krishi Bhavan had been moved to new premises only from 2010. The Court found that the respondent had been working as a part-time sweeper since 2002, and based on fulfilling the mandate prescribed in the Government Order of 2005, his post ought to have been sanctioned by the Government when the proposal was submitted by the Agricultural Officer.

The bench found that the Government did not take a decision on the proposal submitted by the Agricultural Officer. It stated that the Government cannot claim advantage of their own inaction due to the subsequent change in office premises. It was thus held that the inaction on the part of the Government in considering the proposal has delayed the sanctioning of the post of the respondent, to which he was otherwise entitled. 

“Needless to say that the post was liable to be sanctioned and the applicant regularised as such, as per the state of affairs prevailing on the date of Annexure-A2 G.O. The Government did not choose to act upon Annexure-A3 proposal, which was forwarded vide Annexure-A4 letter.”

As such, the Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal sanctioning and regularizing the post of the respondent and disposed of the plea accordingly. 

Case title: State of Kerala V Varghese MA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 426

Case number: OP(KAT) No.168 Of 2022

Counsel for the Petitioners: Senior Government Pleader B Unnikrishna Kaimal

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates Zeena S Fernandez, M Sasidharan

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment