KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) v. P.P. SURESH, ETC. ETC & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 21
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Civil Appeal No. 3285 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1162-1171 of 2016
Civil Appeal No. 7349-50 of 2010
Civil Appeal No. 7804-7813 of 2019
This judgmentLinked proceedings
Civil Appeal No. 3285 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1162-1171 of 2016
Civil Appeal No. 7349-50 of 2010
Civil Appeal No. 7804-7813 of 2019
This judgmentBuilt from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
3.5 The contention of respondents which found favour with the High Court was that the Order dated 07.08.2004 was found illegal in Writ Petition (c) No. 26878 of 2007 and that the said judgment has become final. Aggrieved by their non-appointment in spite of inclusion in the list of 265 dependent sons of the deceased displaced workers, they filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Government to appoint them. The High Court directed the Government to appoint those persons who were included in the list, pursuant to the Order dated 07.08.2004 within a period of six weeks. The High Court further observed that the Order dated 20.02.2002 should not have been altered and directed the Government to reconsider the order dated 07.08.2004. The Government complied with the direction of the High Court in the Writ Petition and issued a Government Order dated 30.04.2009 by which employment was provided to 265 dependent sons of deceased Abkari workers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the validity of the order dated 07.08.2004 has been finally decided in Writ Petition (c) No. 26878 of 2007. [Para 33] [183-F-H]
3.6 The findings recorded by the High Court that a right of appointment accrued to the Respondents and it matured into a Right to Life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. The opinion of the High Court that the Order dated 07.08.2004 is in continuation of the Order dated 20.02.2002 in view of the Order dated 20.02.2002 not being superceded, is disapproved. The Order dated 07.08.2004 was issued in modification of the Order dated 20.02.2002. A close scrutiny of both the Orders would indicate that the Order dated 07.08.2004 replaces the Order dated 20.02.2002 in view of a fresh decision taken to provide employment only to the dependent sons of deceased Abkari workers. [Para 34] [184-B- D] Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 327 : [2006] 3 SCR 420 ; Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 499 : [1993] 3 SCR 128 ; Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 727 : [1999] 2 SCR 1033 ; Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 512 ; Om Kumar v. Union A B C D E F G H 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 17 S.C.R. A B C
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.