IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12920 of 2007(K)
1. K.K.SARASWATHY,W/O.K.V.SUBRAMANYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF KOCHI.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :08/02/2011
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12920 OF 2007
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was employed as a CLR worker under the
respondent Corporation. When she had put in five years of
service, she requested for absorption in a permanent post. Since
her claim was not considered favourably, the petitioner filed
O.P.No.10673/1993 and by Ext.P1 judgment, the same was
disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation, which
was directed to be considered by the Corporation. According to
the petitioner, the petitioner filed a representation, which was
never considered or disposed of. After putting in 18 years of
service, the petitioner has now filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“i)Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to
reckoned the service period of the petitioner from
8/2/1989 to March 2007 as permanent service and
sanction the post retirement benefits such as provident
fund, pension, gratuity etc. to the petitioner like
permanent employee under the respondent Corporation.
ii)Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to
dispose of the Exhibit P-2 representation submitted by the
petitioner as expeditiously as possible”
W.P.(C)No.12920/07 2
2. A statement has been filed by the respondent
wherein it is specifically contended that, in view of Ext.P1
judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed
for, since the very same relief was rejected by this Court by
Ext.P1 judgment. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s
name is included in the list of CLR workers prepared and
regular appointments can be made from that list only in
accordance with the seniority in that list as and when
vacancies arise.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In
Ext.P1 judgment, this Court has categorically held thus:
"xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
4. The claim of the petitioner that she is
entitled to regular appointment under the
respondent seems to me to be untenable.
Appointment could be made only as per the rules
for recruitment. She is only a C.L.R. worker on
daily wages. In other words, her employment is
casual and temporary. Respondent is not obliged
to regularise her appointment or to absorb her in
the establishment. But then she seems to have a
grievance, which deserves to be considered.
5. In the circumstances she may make a
representation to the respondent, which shall be
considered and disposed of as per the relevant
rules without delay. The decision taken shall be
communicated to her”.
(underlining supplied)
W.P.(C)No.12920/07 3
From the same, it is abundantly clear that this Court had
repelled the claim of the petitioner for regularisation
categorically. Of course, the petitioner was permitted to file a
representation and the same was directed to be considered.
But, that does not take away the effect of the finding in
respect of the petitioner’s claim for regularisation. The learned
counsel for the petitioner would contend that, that was at a
time when the petitioner had only put in five years of service
and now that the petitioner has put in 18 years of service, she
is entitled to regularisation. But, there is a specific finding in
Ext.P1 judgment that appointment could be made only as per
the rules for recruitment. The petitioner has no case that
subsequently the petitioner has been appointed as per the
rules of recruitment. As such, the finding in Ext.P1 judgment
still stands in the way of the petitioner notwithstanding the
fact that the petitioner has put in further more years of
service. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS V. UMA DEVI (3) AND OTHERS [(2006)
4 SCC 1] and State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari
W.P.(C)No.12920/07 4
& others [(2010) 9 SCC 247]. But a reading of the those
judgments would show that such regularisation of irregular
appointments can also be made only in cases where the
appointment is to a sanctioned post. Here, the petitioner
herself contend that she is only a CLR worker. In fact, she is
actually seeking absorption in a permanent post. She has no
case that she was appointed in a sanctioned regular post. As
such, those decisions have no applications to the petitioner’s
case.
In view of the above findings, there is no merit in this
writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.12920/07 5
W.P.(C)No.12920/07 6