IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 316 of 2009(K)
1. V. VIJAYAKUMAR, THARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. K. MOHANAN, THARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
3. C. DEVADASAN PILLAI, PUTHINGAL VEEDU
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GROUND WATER
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :03/04/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
---------------------------------------
R.P.No.316 OF 2009
IN
W.P.(C) No.20894 OF 2004
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009
O R D E R
This review petition is filed for review of judgment
dated 19.02.2009 passed in the writ petition. The
petitioners are producing Annexures A1 to A7 documents
along with the review petition. According to them, those
documents could be collected only after disposal of the writ
petition. The review is sought for based on those
documents.
2. Annexure A1 series are documents evidencing
engagement of the petitioners as SLR workers, during the
year 1983. Annexures A2 to A7 are various Government
Orders through which SLR workers in the Ground Water
Department are regularised. The contention of the
petitioners is that in view of the above documents, the
denial of regularisation of the petitioners is highly
discriminative.
R.P.316 of 2009 in W.P.(C) 20894 of 2004
2
3. The challenge in the above writ petition was against
Ext.P4 order, through which Ext.P2 representation
submitted by the petitioners was disposed of. Ext.P4 order
was issued consequent to the directions of this court in
O.P.No.2340/1995. Annexures A2 to A7 Government Orders
were not available before the Government when they
considered Ext.P2 representation. Nor any benefit was
claimed by the petitioner based on those orders. So the
Government have no occasion to consider the claim of the
petitioners based on Annexures A2 to A7 orders, which
according to the petitioners are orders issued with respect
to similarly placed SLR workers.
4. In the judgment dated 19.02.2009, it is specifically
observed that, “in view of the fact that the petitioners were
disputing the findings in Ext.P4 with respect to the date of
their first engagement and in view of their assertion that
similarly situated other labourers were also regularised, it
is for the petitioners to bring those aspects to the notice of
R.P.316 of 2009 in W.P.(C) 20894 of 2004
3
the Government and to seek redressal of their grievance.”
Under such circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to
produce Annexures A2 to A7 documents before the
Government and to claim the same benefit in those orders,
if it is granted to similarly situated SLR workers.
5. In view of the above findings, it is not necessary to
review the judgment based on Annexures A2 to A7
documents. Therefore, the review petition does not
deserves merit and the same is disposed with the above
observations.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE
pac