High Court Kerala High Court

G.Pappachan vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
G.Pappachan vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22088 of 2008(D)


1. G.PAPPACHAN, OPERATOR (HG), KWA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. N.SATHEESAN,
3. K.PRASAD, USHA MANDIRAM, NETTAYAM,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :23/07/2008

 O R D E R
                         V.GIRI, J
                       -------------------
                   W.P.(C).22088/2008
                       --------------------
            Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008

                       JUDGMENT

The petitioners were initially appointed as CLR

Operators and they were brought into the NMR category

on 1.4.1984. The first and second petitioners are still in

service and the third petitioner retired from service on

30.11.2007. The petitioners point out that the petitioners

and similarly placed persons were brought into regular

establishment service pursuant to a decision taken by the

Government in 1983 that all the NMR employees of the

erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department should

be brought into regular establishment, when they

complete five years of NMR service. The petitioners

submit that several other NMR workers were brought into

regular establishment on completion of five years of

service, exempting them from technical and general

qualifications and age limit and their pay was also fixed

notionally, without arrears. Apparently, the petitioners

are not given the benefit of the said decision. They point

out that similarly situated persons had approached this

W.P.(C).22088/2008
2

Court and their claim was directed to be considered

under Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. Petitioners claim that

they are similarly situated.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader as also the learned

Standing Counsel for the Water Authority.

3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing

the petitioners to approach the first respondent with

their claim, as mentioned above. If they file such a

representation within one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, first respondent shall,

after hearing the petitioners, take a decision on the

claim made by the petitioners for absorption into

regular service with effect from the date on which they

complete five years as NMR operators. A decision shall

be taken within three months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

W.P.(C).22088/2008
3

Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment,

along with a copy of the writ petition before the first

respondent, for compliance.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs