IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4258 of 2005(F)
1. WILSON K., ANDANKULANGARA THADATHARIKATH
... Petitioner
2. VASU PILLAI S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI,
3. S.VIMALAKUMARI, D/O. L.L.SORNAMMA,
4. M.RADHA D/O. MADHAVI, KOLIYAKKODU
5. JAGATHAMMA ALIAS JAGATHA D/O. LISSY,
6. SUDHAKARA ALIAS MANIYAN S/O. BHASKARAN,
7. M.SOMAN S/O. MADHAVA PANICKER,
8. RAJAMMA S., D/O. SUNDARI,
9. P.SURENDRAN S/O. PRABHAKARA PANICKER
10. SASI K., DILI BHAVAN,
11. SOMAN K., SAJI BHAVAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION,
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/08/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 4258 OF 2005
====================
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners claim that they were Casual Labour Roll
Workers at the Neyyar Dam site prior to 19.5.1983.
Claiming benefit of Ext.P1 Government Order, seeking to
have Ext.P6 quashed and to direct the respondents to
regularise their services under the Irrigation Department,
based on Ext.P2 seniority list, this writ petition is filed.
2. Ext.P1 is the Government Order dated 20.1.1990,
which interalia provided for the appointment of CLR Workers
to regular worker (SLR) posts provided they were in service
on or before 19.5.1983 and have put in a minimum service
of 500 years as on 1.4.1987. It also provides that those
CLR Workers appointed on or before 19.5.1983 and have
not completed 500 days of service as on 1.4.1987 will be
eligible for absorption as SLR worker according to the orders
WPC 4258/05
: 2 :
in G.O(P) No.106/85/PW&T dated 17.9.1985, but they will
not be eligible for appointment to regular posts.
3. Petitioners are claiming the benefit of the
aforesaid clause on the basis that they have the required
length of service. On an earlier occasion, they had filed OP
No.10746/01 claiming the relief of regularisation and the
original petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment
directing the Chief Engineer to dispose of their
representations. It is stated that thereafter the Chief
Engineer forwarded the matter to the Government with
Ext.P5, a favourable report. But however, by Ext.P6 the
Government turned down their request. It is challenging
Ext.P6 and seeking consequential reliefs that this writ
petition is filed.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents, in which it is stated that it was not the
Irrigation Department as pleaded by the petitioners, but the
Public Works Department, which was authorised to prepare
WPC 4258/05
: 3 :
and publish the seniority list of CLR Workers, subject to the
conditions in Ext.P1 Government Order. It is stated that
accordingly a list was prepared and published by the Public
Works Department and CLR workers were regularised on
that basis. It is stated that Ext.P2 list produced by the
petitioners is not a seniority list , but is only a statement
prepared by the then Assistant Engineer at the Neyyar Dam
Site and that although a thorough search was made in the
office of the Assistant Engineer, no reliable documents such
as M. Books, CL Rolls etc., which are the basic and authentic
documents regarding the engagement of CLR workers,
could be traced out. Therefore on this basis, Government
contented that Ext.P2 was not a reliable list and cannot
acted upon for regularisation purposes.
5. Two conditions that are prescribed in Ext.P1 are
that one should be in service as CLR on or before 19/5/1983
and completion of 500 days as on 01.04.1987 to be
appointed to regular service SLR posts. Similarly, those who
WPC 4258/05
: 4 :
were appointed on or before 19/5/1983 and who have not
completed 500 days as on 1/4/1987 will be ineligible only
for absorption as CLR also. In so far as this case is
concerned, Ext.P2 only shows that the petitioners were
engaged for some time prior to 19.5.1983. Whatever be the
worth of it, according to the Government, in the absence of
supporting documents, Ext.P2 cannot be acted upon and
such a conclusion of the Government cannot be said to be
arbitrary in any matter. Ext.P6 also shows that the claim of
the petitioners was that they have worked for a period
ranging from 4 to 23 days as on 31/5/2000. Therefore, they
have no case that they continued as CLR beyond 19/5/1983
and completed the number of days as on 01/04/1987. If
that be so, the case of the petitioners do not answer the
requirements of Clause 2(iv) of Ext.P1 Government Order.
6. In so far as Ext.P5 relied on by the petitioners as a
favourable report of the Chief Engineer is concerned, I
notice that the Government is the competent authority to
WPC 4258/05
: 5 :
include the petitioners in the seniority list and absorb them
as SLR workers. For that reason, the Chief Engineer only
decided to take up the case of the petitioners with the
Government for appropriate decision after obtaining verified
relevant details of the petitioners from the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Channel Sub Division, Neyyattinkara. It
was only a report and not a recommendation as contented
by the petitioners. Further, this report was subject to
availability of relevant details from the Assistant Executive
Engineer, which as already stated, were not available. In
the result, Ext.P5 itself does not improve the case of the
petitioners.
7. In Para 5 of the writ petition, petitioners make
reference to the case of certain persons who were included
in Ext.P2 and contend that they were regularised on the
basis of their inclusion in Ext.P2. On this basis, it is argued
that the contention of the Government that Ext.P2 is
unworthy of reliance is not correct. This contention of the
WPC 4258/05
: 6 :
petitioners is answered by the respondents in Para 4 of the
counter, where they plead that it was not on account of their
inclusion in Ext.P2 that they were regularised, but by virtue
of their inclusion in the State wise seniority list prepared by
the Chief Engineer, PWD (Administration), and also stated
that the persons who were regularised as above had also
satisfied the requirements laid down in Ext.P1 Government
Order. In the light of the specific contention raised in the
counter affidavit, I do not find any merit in the above
averments in Para 5 of the writ petition as well.
For these reasons, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P6.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp