MATHEW T.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was admittedly working as Reprographic Assistant with the 3rd respondent institution -the Kerala State Audio Visual & Reprographic Centre. He joined the Centre in 1999 and continued to work. Apparently Ex. P1 order was passed in pursuance of the directions of this Court pertaining to a litigation in 2003. Ext. P1 admittedly refers to reinstatement of surplus staff retrenched at one point of time including the petitioner. Subsequently this Court by order dated 07.06.2011 directed the respondents to comply with Ext. P1 order dated 21.04.2008 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, a review petition came to be filed contending that having regard to the change of circumstances Ext. P1 order came to be passed in 2008 cannot be implemented in view of the order dated 05.07.2011 revising the order at Ext. P1. Apparently the order dated 05.07.2011 issued by the Government indicates that 5 Riso operators of the Centre need not be reverted and this is the modification of Ext. P1 order. No doubt, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge contending that order dated 05.07.2011 revising Ext. P1 was made without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein.

(2.) THE question is whether appellant has a right to be heard before Government takes a policy decision to review its earlier order. According to the appellant/petitioner, if Committee's report is virtually implemented without any deviation, he would stand to benefit and he will not be affected by modification of Ext. P1 order. Ext. P3 is the report of the committee along with the statement indicating the position of different officials in different cadres wherein item No. 49 refers to appellant herein. The appellant cannot seek for implementation of this Ext. P3 as this is only a recommendation by the Committee to the Government indicating the factual position. The Government can take a policy decision on how many staff in a particular cadre could be there and whether surplus staff could be retrenched. Admittedly, Ext. P2 of 2008 never came to be implemented. Therefore, the benefit that could have extended to the petitioner never saw the light of the day. The fact remains, before it could be implemented, by virtue of Ext. P7, the benefit extended under Ext. P1 came to be modified, therefore the policy decision of the Government at Ext. P7 under challenge is also a modified policy decision of Ext. P1. As long as this policy decision is within the powers of the Government, it does not lay in the mouth of the appellant to contend that he must be given an opportunity of being heard. Review of Ext. P1 does not pertain to any particular person. It pertains to the decision of the Committee upon which the Government earlier took a policy decision, therefore, the policy decision of the Government can be modified or reverted at any point of time as long as it had not created any vested right to any person. In the present case, in the absence of Ext. P1 being implemented, no one can claim that actually Ext. P1 order was implemented and benefit accrued to a particular party. After implementation of Ext. P1 if Ext. P1 came to be modified, then there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the benefit was actually extended to him, therefore it cannot be taken away. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.