The Managing Director vs A.P. Balakrishnan on 19 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2209 of 2008()


1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER

                        Vs



1. A.P. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. A.P. NARAYANAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V.SREEDHARAN, S/O. P.RAMAN NAIR,

3. GOWRI SNAKARAN, S/O. BHASKARAN,

4. M.SANKARAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, ANAMARI

5. M.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUTTA,

6. K.VASUDEVAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,

7. T.GOPALAN, S/O. KARIKKA, THERUMARIL

8. K.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. A.KUNCHAN,

9. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

10. THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION, GOVT.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :19/11/2008

 O R D E R
                J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
                         --------------------------------------
                        W.A.No.2209 of 2008 and
                         C.M.Appl.No.994 of 2008
                         -------------------------------------
                       Dated 19th November, 2008

                                  JUDGMENT

Koshy,J.

Writ petitioners joined as C.L.R. workers in the Public Health

Engineering Department under the State Government between 12.5.1980

and 26.5.1983, before the constitution of the Kerala Water and Waste

Water Authority with effect from 1.4.1984 which later on came to be the

Kerala Water Authority. Petitioners continued in the Water Authority

also and they were absorbed in the regular establishment only with effect

from 21.10.2005. Similarly situated persons approached the Supreme

Court earlier and the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed regularization

with various specific directions in Jacob M.Puthuparambil and Others

v. Kerala Water Authority & Others (AIR 1990 SC 2228). In the

impugned judgment, the learned single Judge only directed that similar

benefits be given to the petitioners also. This appeal is filed with a delay

of 261 days. Reason stated in the affidavit in support of the application

to condone the delay is that the authority took time for procuring the

documents necessary for filing the appeal. We are of the opinion that the

above reason is not at all sufficient to condone the long delay of 261 days

W.A.2209/2008 2

in filing the appeal. Since no satisfactory reasons are stated to

condone the delay, the application to condone the delay is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE

THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE

tks