IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22307 of 2010(K)
1. GANESAN.V, S/O.VEERAN,
... Petitioner
2. PONNUSWAMI.A,
3. RAVICHANDRAN.S,
4. MANI.S,
5. RAMESH.A, S/O.APPASWAMI,
6. RAMESH.K., S/O.KITTAN,
7. VALLIAMMA.A,
8. VALLIYAMMA.K.,
9. MANIKANDAN.S,
10. BAIJU.S, S/O.SOMAN,
11. MURUKESAN.A, S/O.ANKAPPAN,
12. PRAKASAN.M, S/O.MURUKESAN,
13. BALAN.A, S/O.ANKAPPAN,
14. PADMANABHAN,
15. JAYAKUMAR.M.S., S/O.MANI,
16. SIVADAS.A, S/O.APPUKUTTAN,
17. SANTHAKUMARAN, PERUMKODE,
18. CHITHRA RAJAN,
Vs
1. CHITTUR-THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.22307 of 2010 (K)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners claim to be CLR workers engaged by the
respondent Municipality. According to the petitioners, in view of
Ext.P1, which has been implemented by the Palakkad Municipality
by Ext.P5, they are entitled to similar treatment and regularisation.
It is seen that they have made this claim by Ext.P2 and other
representations before the 1st respondent. Orders on the
representations have not been passed and therefore, the writ
petition has been field.
2. The claim of the petitioners for regularisation is yet to be
considered by the 1st respondent and in view of the pendency of
Ext.P2 and other representations, which are claimed to have been
filed, I direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders
thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along
with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for
compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg