IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36470 of 2003(N)
1. P.M.KUTTAPPAN, S/O. MADHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :YRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :01/04/2009
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 36470 OF 2003-N
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st April,2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court claiming
regularisation of past service with effect from 1.4.1971. The
petitioner claims that he had entered service in 1996 as a casual
labourer (CLR worker) on temporary service in the Thanneer
Mukkam Project Division under the third respondent. According to
him he had worked continuously thereafter but he was not
regularised though persons similarly placed were regularised as per
Ext.P1 G.O. Subsequently, he has been regularised but, only with
effect from 17.6.1995. In view of the above he claims
regularisation with effect from 1.4.1971. He had earlier
approached this Court by filing O.P.5890/95 alleging that his
application for regularisation was not considered by the authorities.
As per Ext.P2 judgment this Court had directed the State to
consider his claim expeditiously. It is pursuant to the said direction
that his services have been regularised. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has since retired from service as a Class
IV employee.
WPC 36470/2003 2
2. The claim of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it
is contended that the service of the petitioner was not continuous.
He had only broken periods of service totalling 865 days. He was
eligible for absorption into regular service only with effect from
17.6.1995. According to the second respondent, the persons in
Ext.P1 were workers who had been engaged continuously and it was
for the said reason that they were absorbed as SLR workers with
effect from 1.4.1971. On the basis of the availability of vacancies
they were further absorbed as NMR workers. The second
respondent has further averred that the criteria adopted for
absorption of such persons was, the number of continuous working
days put it by a person, the requirement and availability of
vacancies, seniority etc. Since the petitioner did not satisfy any of
the above criteria, his claim could not be allowed. Therefore, he
was regularised only with effect from 17.6.1995, which is perfectly
in order.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the
Govt. Pleader.
4. It is seen from Ext.P1 that the persons named therein are
CLR workers who have been brought into NMR service with effect
WPC 36470/2003 3
from 1.4.1971. There is nothing on record to show that the
petitioner was similarly situated as the persons named in the said
order. According to the counter affidavit, the claim of the
petitioner was considered on the basis of various criteria and he
was regularised with effect from 17.6.1995. The criteria adopted
cannot be termed as unreasonable. The petitioner has since retired
from service after being regularised as a Class IV worker. The
petitioner has not been able to show that he has any right to get
regularisation with effect from 1.4.1971. In view of the above, the
claim of the petitioner fails. The writ petition is therefore
dismissed. No costs.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
WPC 36470/2003 4
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
—————————————————-
M.F.A.NO:
—————————————————–
JUDGMENT
Dated: