IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30428 of 2005(V)
1. A. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KASARGOD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT, THE KASARGOD PRIMARY
3. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
For Petitioner :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
For Respondent :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :14/07/2006
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.30428 OF 2005
------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2006
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a physically handicapped person, claims the benefit of
Ext.P3 Government Order. As per Government Order dated 28.9.1998. the
physically handicapped provisional (temporary) employees who were engaged in
service during the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 were ordered to be
retained/re-appointed in service on a purely provisional basis subject to the
conditions specified therein. By Ext.P3 order, the Government extended the
benefit to those physically handicapped persons who were in service during the
period from 1.1.1998 to 14.8.1998.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the first respondent – Bank on
1.7.1998 on temporary basis and after completion of 179 days, he was discharged
from service on 26.12.1998. Now, on the basis of Ext.P3 Government Order,
the petitioner seeks re-appointment and since the first respondent – Bank is not
taking a final decision in the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court.
W.P.(C)NO.30428/2005 2
3. A counter affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of respondents 1
and 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the first
respondent – Bank is running at a loss and has not made any appointment since
10.1.1994 except that of a Security Guard in 2002 and another appointment
under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme. Counsel relies on Ext.R1(a) Circular in
which it is stated that the question as to whether the services of the physically
handicapped employees who have put in similar provisional services in Public
Sector Undertakings, Local Bodies, Autonomous Bodies and Institutions under
Co-operative Sector during the period from 1.1.1997 to 14..8.1998 should be
regularised or not can be decided by these bodies themselves taking into
consideration the interest of the organisation.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed under the first respondent –
Bank. As per Ext.R1(a), permission is granted to the Autonomous Bodies and
Institutions to take a decision in the matter of regularisation. It is reported that
the petitioner had approached the third respondent and the third respondent as per
Exts.P6 and P7 orders directed the Bank to consider the case of the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, inspite of Exts.P6 and P7, the Bank is not taking any
W.P.(C)NO.30428/2005 3
decision. It is the discretion of the Bank to take decision in the matter of
appointment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the first
respondent – Bank is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and take a
decision as early as possible, at any rate within 45 days from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C)NO.30428/2005 4
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
W.P.(C)NO.30428/2005
JUDGMENT
14TH JULY, 2006
W.P.(C)NO.30428/2005 5