IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18967 of 2009(P)
1. K.VISWANATHAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.I.P.DIVISION,
For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 18967 OF 2009 (M)
=====================
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that he is a CLR worker engaged in the
PIP Division, Changgannoor. He claims regularization in service.
It is stated that the Chief Engineer has already recommended his
regularization and in this context, petitioner refers to Exts.P5 and
P7. It is stated that, despite all this, a decision has not been
taken by the 1st respondent and therefore the writ petition is field.
2. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd
respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent had reported that
the petitioner had worked on HR basis for 71 days during 1979
and that based on the report, a proposal has been submitted to
the 1st respondent as per Ext.P5 as the Government alone has the
competence to take a decision in the matter. According to the 2nd
respondent, on receipt of the proposal, Government sought to
verify the original of the documents related to the engagement of
the petitioner and that originals were obtained and submitted to
the 1st respondent on 20/8/2009. It is stated that a decision of the
1st respondent is awaited on the claim of the petitioner for
WPC 18967/09
:2 :
regularisation.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
will be attaining the age of superannuation soon and therefore
unless the decision of the Government is expedited, the petitioner
will not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of regularisation.
4. From the facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit, it is
therefore obvious that the matter is pending before the 1st
respondent atleast since 20/8/09. Since the issue involved is
regularisation of service and as the petitioner contends that he
has very little service left, it is only appropriate that the 1st
respondent should decide on the proposal made by the 2nd
respondent, as expeditiously as possible.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to decide on the proposal made by the 2nd respondent
for the regularisation of the petitioner’s service, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of
this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment
along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for
compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp