IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30168 of 2005(N)
1. P.X.JOSEPH, AGED 40, S/O.XAVIER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI
4. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.S.ASHRAF
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.BABU, SC, COCHIN CORPN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :14/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 30168 OF 2005
-----------------------------
Dated this the 14th February, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The facts as averred in the writ petition would go to
show that the petitioner had been working as CLR/substitute
worker under the Corporation of Kochi for the last more
than 17 years. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order issued by the
Government on 29.3.2001, the respondent-Corporation has
published Ext.P4 list which contains the names of CLR
workers/substitute workers who are entitled to be granted
the benefit of regularisation according to their turn.
Serial number allotted to the petitioner in Ext.P4 list is
301. It is averred in the writ petition that 97 employees
included in Ext.P4 list have been granted the benefit of
regularisation. This was done in 2005. Thereafter nothing
has been done by the respondent-Corporation. Unless the
benefit of regularisation is granted, persons like the
petitioner will not be able to avail service benefits
including terminal benefits on their retirement on
superannuation. It will also affect their right to receive
emoluments as are sanctioned for the regular establishment
post.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4
list, though contains the names of so many persons will
WPC 30168/2005 2
have to be short listed after deleting those who have died
during the currency of that list, those attained the age of
superannuation and those whose names are entered more than
once, as can be seen from that list itself. It is also
contended that when the names of such persons are removed
from Ext.P4 list, the chances of the petitioner for
regularisation will get accelerated, and having regard to
the work to be carried out by the Corporation utilising the
services of persons like the petitioner, he will become
entitled for the benefit of regularisation, immediately.
3. In this writ petition the reliefs prayed for by the
petitioner are the following:-
“i) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents 2 and 3 to regularise the service of
the petitioner forthwith.
ii) to issue any writ, order or direction
commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to ascertain
the number of vacancies of sanitation workers
available in the Corporation with reference to the
number of vacancies which were available at the
time when the Corporation was Municipality and
regularise the service of the petitioner.
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
respondents 2 and 3 to rectify the anomalies crept
in Ext.P4 list and issue a revised list with
relevant particulars such as date of commencement
of service etc.
iv) to declare that the petitioner is
entitled to get preference in the matter of
regularisation in view of the fact that he has got
valid registration with the Employment Exchange
since 1984 onwards.
WPC 30168/2005 3
v) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay equal pay as that of the
regularised employees of the same category in view
of the accepted principle of equal pay for equal
work and in the light of the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
vi) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to pay full wages to the
petitioner as that of the CLR employees in other
Municipalities/Corporation in the state including
arrears thereof forthwith.
vii) to issue any writ, order or direction
commanding the respondents to take appropriate
action on Exts.P6 and P7 within a time limit.
viii) to issue such other writ, order or
direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of this case.”
4. Despite several chances given to the
respondent-Corporation, no counter affidavit has been
filed. At one point of time this Court was constrained to
pass interim orders finding that respondents 2 and 3 failed
to appear in person or through counsel. Subsequently, the
Secretary of the Corporation appeared in person and filed
an affidavit expressing his regret. However, nothing
useful has been done by the said respondent thereafter
also. This indifference continues. Today when the case
has been taken up for consideration, none appears for the
Corporation. I do not think it necessary to adjourn this
case again and again so as to suit the convenience of the
respondent-Corporation. The uncontroverted averments made
WPC 30168/2005 4
by the petitioner will have to be accepted as true and
reliable. I am convinced that interest of justice requires
that the following directions shall be given to the
respondent-Corporation:-
(1) The respondent-Corporation shall immediately take
up for consideration the need for deleting the names of
those whose names are repeated in Ext.P4 list, rather
duplicated.
(2) The respondent-Corporation shall also ascertain
the details of those who died before and after the
publication of Ext.P4 list and the names of those persons
removed from the list. Likewise, the names of those who
have already attained the age of superannuation also shall
be deleted from this list.
(3) After doing that exercise, a fresh list shall be
prepared by the Corporation in tune with the directions
issued by the Government in Ext.P2 order within a maximum
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
the judgment.
(4) The right of the petitioner to be regularised
shall be taken up depending upon the seniority assigned to
him in that list. If it is found that the services of
persons who are yet to be granted the benefit of
regularisation are required by the Corporation, such
WPC 30168/2005 5
persons shall be given employment according to their
seniority as will be reflected from the fresh list and they
shall also be granted the benefit of regularisation in
terms of Ext.P2 G.O.
(5) The entire exercise shall be completed within
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
Writ petition is allowed as above.
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj