IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4492 of 2005(I)
1. THRESSIA JOHN, (EX-FEMALE WARDEN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :01/01/2007
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 4492 OF 2005 I
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Challenge is to Ext. P2 order passed by the
Government rejecting the request of the petitioner to
grant her pensionary benefits, if any, as per the
directions issued by this Court in Ext. P4 judgment.
She has sought for a declaration to make available the
benefits granted to one Smt. T.P. Clara who had worked
as Casual Female Warden along with the petitioner on
the ground that she is similarly placed.
2. The petitioner has got to her credit temporary
service on daily wage basis for a period of about 38
years. Posts were sanctioned in 1998, and immediately
thereafter, candidates appointed by the P.S.C. joined
duty on regular basis. At that stage, the petitioner
and some others approached this Court with the prayer
that the respondents ought to have regularised their
services and having regard to the service already
rendered, they shall be granted the pensionary
benefits. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed
the writ petition. However, the Division Bench in
appeal reversed the judgment of the learned Single
WPC No.4492 /2005 -2-
Judge as seen from Ext. P4 holding that the appointment
of the petitioner cannot be treated as a regular one
since the materials placed for consideration were
insufficient to treat the appointment as regular. A
distinction was drawn between similarly placed
employees in whose cases service books were opened and
the case of the petitioner who did not have the benefit
of a service book. It was held that the petitioner
cannot claim the benefit of regularisation in service.
However, the Division Bench observed vide paragraph 5
of Ext. P4 as follows:
“We find all the same the matter
requires consideration at the hands of the
Government and decide as to whether any other
relief can be given to them considering the
fact that they were engaged on daily wages
for quite some time. In such circumstances,
without examining the matter on merits we
leave the matter to the Government to
consider the requests made by the petitioners
in these cases and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.” (emphasis supplied)
3. Thereafter Ext. P2 order was passed in the
following lines:
“I am to invite your attention to the
reference cited. Government have considered
the observations made by the Hon’ble High
Court in the Judgment cited. As per the
existing rules, there is no provision for
regularizing the appointment of daily rated
WPC No.4492 /2005 -3-
employees in Government service. Persons
appointed on daily wages basis are not
eligible for any service benefits apart from
the wage as prescribed by Government from
time to time. Also there is no provision in
the existing rules to grant any other relief
such as pensionary benefits to the persons
were engaged on daily wages for quite some
time. In the circumstances, I am directed to
inform you that your request for
regularization of appointment is rejected.”
It is evident from Ext. P2 that the Government have not
considered the case of the petitioner in the
perspective in which the Division Bench wanted the
Government to deal with the case of the petitioner and
similarly placed persons. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that though a plea for
regularisation in service cannot be put forward by the
petitioner, it is open to the Government to take into
consideration the peculiar situation in which she is
placed and having regard to the length of service
rendered by her, to pass orders granting “any other
reliefs” made mention by the Division Bench in Ext. P4
judgment.
4. I have heard the Govt. Pleader for the
respondent.
5. Since that has not been done, Ext. P2 is liable
to be set aside. Ext. P2 order deals with the case of
WPC No.4492 /2005 -4-
the petitioner in a routine manner. This Court should
be presumed to have taken note of the fact that the
petitioner will not be entitled for pensionary benefits
had her case been dealt with strictly according to the
rules in force. The fact that the Division Bench
observed that the petitioner’s claim for any other
benefit can be considered by the Government,
necessarily postulates that even in the absence of
rules, the Government will have the right to show due
indulgence to the petitioner and pass orders which the
Government would feel appropriate.
6. The respondent has not considered the case of
the petitioner as directed by the Division Bench in
Ext. P4 judgment. Hence, I set aside Ext. P2. The
case of the petitioner shall be considered by the
respondent and fresh orders passed within six weeks on
receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/