IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2625 of 2007()
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Petitioner
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Vs
1. PADMAVATHY, D/O.DAMODARAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :13/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A. No.2625 OF 2007
------------------------------
Dated this, the 13th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellants were the respondents in the Writ
Petition. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. She
was a Casual Labour Roll worker (CLR worker) working under
the appellants. For absorption of CLR workers, who have
more than 500 days casual service, in the regular
establishment and to accommodate persons with less than
500 days service as Seasonal Labour Roll workers (SLR
workers), the Government issued Ext.P1 Government Order
on 20.1.1990. The absorption was subject to the condition of
availability of vacancies. The authority concerned invited
applications from claimants, who claimed the benefit of
Ext.P1. Last date for receipt of applications was 31.7.1992.
The petitioner submitted the application within the said time
limit. But, she was not included in the list of CLR workers
prepared pursuant to the issuance of Ext.P1. Finally, as per
the direction of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner’s
W.A. No.2625/2007
– 2 –
claim was reconsidered and the Government by Ext.P3 order
dated 11.9.2002 directed to include the respondent/petitioner
in the list of eligible CLR workers and to absorb her as SLR
worker. In the light of Ext.P3, the petitioner approached this
Court claiming that Ext.P3 should be given retrospective
effect from the date of submission of application by her. She
also claimed absorption in regular establishment. The
learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, disposed of
the Writ Petition, directing to absorb the
respondent/petitioner as SLR worker with effect from
1.11.1992. Challenging the said direction, this Writ Appeal is
preferred.
3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The
learned senior Government Pleader, who appeared for the
appellants, submitted that, even if, the respondent was
included in the list of CLR workers eligible for absorption as
SLR worker, she can be so absorbed only when vacancy is
available. So, the direction issued is not justifiable. The
learned counsel for the respondent supported the direction of
the learned Single Judge.
W.A. No.2625/2007
– 3 –
4. Since the respondent has not worked for 500 days
as stipulated in Ext.P1, she is not eligible for absorption in
the regular establishment. So, the said relief sought as prayer
No.2 in the Writ Petition was not allowed by the learned
Single Judge. As mentioned earlier, relief granted was
absorption as SLR worker from 1.11.1992. We find
considerable force in the submission of the learned
Government Pleader. Even if, she was included in the list of
CLR workers prepared pursuant to the applications received
on or before 31.7.1992, she could be absorbed only as and
when vacancy arises. The respondent has been included in
the list of CLR workers as a person who has worked for 153
days. So, it can be assumed that her turn arose when another
person included in the list having 153 days service or lesser
than had been appointed as SLR worker after 31.7.1992. So,
the absorption of the respondent under Ext.P3 shall be given
retrospective effect from the date another worker similarly
placed, who has got only 153 days service or lesser number of
days’ service was absorbed as CLR worker. The respondent
shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits with effect
W.A. No.2625/2007
– 4 –
from that date without arrears of salary. She will be entitled
to get salary from the date of Ext.P3. The judgment under
appeal is modified and Writ Appeal is allowed as above.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps