High Court Kerala High Court

C.Bhuvanachandran Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
C.Bhuvanachandran Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10820 of 2004(K)


1. C.BHUVANACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. B.SASIKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE WILD LIFE WARDEN (SANCTUARY)

3. THE CONSERVATOR, WILD LIFE,

4. THE RANGER, OFFICE OF NAYYAR WILD LIFE

5. THE FORESTOR, CLAMALA SECTION-I,

6. THE FORESTOR, HEAD QUARTERS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/12/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
             --------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) NO.10820 OF 2004 (K)
             --------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 21stday of December, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

First petitioner was a protection labourer on daily wages at

Ananirathi and the 2nd petitioner was engaged for feeding

animals and cleaning the cages of the animals, on daily wages.

The first prayer in this writ petition is to revise the monetary

benefits due to them, implementing the benefit of Ext.P1 order.

2. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the first

respondent they have produced Ext.R1(a) Government Order

dated 29th January, 2004 directing to keep Ext.P1 in abeyance, in

view of the discrepancies that were noticed. Therefore Ext.P1 has

not been implemented, and therefore, the petitioners cannot

claim the benefit of Ext.P1.

3. The second prayer made is to provide the insurance

coverage and safety gadgets and maintain dress code and to

issue identity cards. In so far as the insurance coverage is

concerned, the same is available only to regular employees and

to temporary staff , with more than 5 years service. Petitioners do

not satisfy this condition. If so, they cannot ask for this benefit.

4. As far as the prayer for gadgets is concerned,

Government Pleader submits that at the place to which the

WPC.No. 10820/04
:2 :

petitioners’ were allotted, there is a wireless station providing

for communication. In so far as the prayer for maintaining dress

code and issue of identity card is concerned, Government Pleader

points out that these facilities are not available to daily wages

employees like the petitioners. The third prayer is to maintain a

muster roll and daily wages register. The counter affidavit shows

that these documents are maintained.

5. The next prayer is to convert them as SLR workers.

Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 6

show that this issue has already been turned down by this court in

the judgment in O.P.NO.37833/02 and if so, this claim also cannot

be considered.

The last prayer made is for their continuance in service.

Daily wages employees like the petitioners can be appointed

subject to requirements and if so the petitioners cannot claim that

they should be engaged continuously. Needles to say that it will

be open to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue

in service depending upon on their requirements.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No. 10820/04
:3 :