IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24190 of 2008(Y)
1. USMAN HALIYADAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL
5. KOOTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) Nos.24190 & 24333 of 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 2nd day of August 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are Health Inspectors in the Municipal
Common Service.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24190/08 is working
in the Koothuparamba Municipality and petitioners in W.P.
(C)No.24333/08 are Health Inspectors in the Palakkad
Municipality.
3. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24190/08
is concerned, before joining service in the Municipal
Common Service on 22.4.1991, he worked as Health
Inspector in the Health Department on a provisional basis
during the period from 5.11.1986 to 22.4.1991. In so far
the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24333/08 is concerned, he
worked on provisional basis as Junior Health Inspector
W.P.(C) Nos.24190 & 24333 of 2008
-: 2 :-
Grade II for the period from 20.10.1986 to 4.10.1991, when
he joined on regular basis. The 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.24333/08 also worked as Junior Health Inspector Grade
II during the period from 10.10.1986 to 11.4.1991, when
he joined service on regular basis.
4. Claim of the petitioners is that they are entitled
to have their provisional service also for reckoning service
benefits. According to the petitioner, since the Government
decision No.2 under Rule 33, Part-I of K.S.R was deleted
with effect from 1.10.1994, they stopped the practice of
granting increments to employees reckoning provisional
service on getting regular appointment.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd
respondent, it is stated that since the petitioners are
employees in the Municipal Common Service, they are not
entitled to have their provisional service in the Health
Department reckoned for service benefits. However, a
reading of Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in O.P.No.23651
of 1998 and connected cases and Ext.P7 order of the
W.P.(C) Nos.24190 & 24333 of 2008
-: 3 :-
Director of Urban Affairs dated 16.8.2007 shows that in
respect of similarly situated employees, such benefits have
been granted. In the light of the above and as the claim of
the petitioners is identical, I see no reason to deny the
prayers of the petitioners.
6. Having regard to the above, I dispose of these
writ petitions declaring that the petitioners are entitled to
have their prior provisional service in the Health Service
Department reckoned for increments. Consequent benefits,
if not already disbursed, shall be disbursed to the
petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Jvt