Sreelatha.V vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36411 of 2009(V)


1. SREELATHA.V,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE FILM

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.AHZAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/12/2009

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    -------------------------
                    W.P.(C.) No.36411 of 2009 (V)
              ---------------------------------
            Dated, this the 16th day of December, 2009

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a Typist in the 2nd respondent

establishment on daily wages since 1988. She claimed

regularisation and her claim was ordered to be considered by the 2nd

respondent by judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.22961/2009.

Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P6 is the

proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent dated 20/11/2009. In

Ext.P6 it is stated that “in the case of Smt.Sreelatha, she satisfies the

condition that she has been continuing in the post of Typist for

more than 10 years, but not under the cover of Court order. On

verification of her appointment file, prima-facie, it is seen that she

was appointed against a sanctioned post of Typist.” Proceeding

further it is stated thus :

“Hence in view of the facts stated above and in compliance with
the judgment dated 17th September 2009 of the Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.22961/2009 (M), the representation of
Smt.Sreelatha V. is disposed of directing her to pursue and to
await the decision of the Government in the proposal sent by the

WP(C) No.36411/2009
-2-

KSFDC on 31/03/2006 for regularization of 56 employees
including herself.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concluding portion of

Ext.P6, where the 2nd respondent has decided to await orders of the

1st respondent for regularising the services of the petitioner.

3. If under the Articles or other rules of the 2nd respondent,

such a procedure is prescribed, the petitioner cannot take objection

to the view taken in Ext.P6. However, from Ext.P6 itself, it is seen

that a proposal in this behalf has already been sent by the 2nd

respondent to the 1st respondent as early as on 31/03/2006.

Therefore, it is for the 1st respondent to take a final decision on the

proposal thus made.

4. Having regard to the above, I dispose of the writ petition

directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the proposal

submitted by the 2nd respondent on 31/03/2006 for regularising

the employees including the petitioner, taking note of the statement

in Ext.P6 that the petitioner is eligible for regularisation. Orders

shall be passed on the proposal as above as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of

this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition.

WP(C) No.36411/2009
-3-

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along

with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for

compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg