IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12177 of 2009(N)
1. R.PAKASHAN & OTHERS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 12177 of 2009-N
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are physically handicapped persons who are appointed
in Government departments during various periods starting from the year
1996. It is stated that they were appointed through Employment Exchanges
and they were terminated at the end of the prescribed period, except the 6th
petitioners who is working provisionally as L.D. Typist/Clerk, Farm
Information Bureau, Calicut from 24.12.2008 which is to expire on
20.6.2009. He had earlier worked during the year 1995 to 1996.
2. The main complaint raised by the petitioners is that even though
similarly placed physically handicapped persons who had gained
employment on a provisional basis, have been ordered to be regularised in
service as per Ext.P1 and other orders, no such benefit has been conferred
on persons like the petitioners who are similarly situated. Ext.P1 is an order
by which the Government directed regularisation in service of physically
handicapped provisional employees who were in service during the period
15.8.1998 to 15.8.1999 and who have completed 179 days of service. It is
now pointed out that persons who were in service during the period from
wpc 12177/2009
2
1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997 have also been directed to be regularised as per
G.O.(P) No.32/1998/P & ARD dated 28.9.1998. The petitioners contend
that as similarly placed physically handicapped provisional employees are
considered for regularisation, there cannot be a differentiation between
persons appointed in an year to that of persons appointed in another year.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that same will
violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioners have approached the Government by filing Ext.P3
representation. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the same has been acknowledged
also.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second
respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 after hearing the
petitioners (a representative of the petitioners will be heard), within a period
of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
petitioners will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the
judgment before the second respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
\\True copy//
P.A. to Judge