IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28188 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOPINATHA PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.P.NARAYANA PILLAI, RETIRED HOSPITAL ATTENDER GRADE I, RESIDING AT RAJESH MANDIRAM, NETAJI ROAD, VATTIYOOR KAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 013. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 28382 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.28188 &28382/09 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these two writ petitions petitioners commenced service prior to 1994, as provisional employees as Filaria workers under the National Filaria Programme. The petitioner in WP(c).No.28188/09 was regularized in service in 2001 and the petitioner in WP(c). No.28382/09 was regularised in 1997. The another claim that they have now urge is that the service rendered by them as provisional employees should be reckoned along with their regular service for the purpose of determining their pensionary eligibility. With this claim they approached the Government and being unsuccessful, these writ petitions are filed. 2. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners were under Rule 9(a)(1). Initially, in terms of the Government decision No.2 under Rule 33 of Part-I KSR, provisional service on regularization without break in the same category or post shall be treated as officiating for the purposes mentioned therein. However this decision has been deleted with effect from 1.10.1994. If that be so, WPC.Nos.28188 & 28382 /09 :2 : on the date when the petitioners were regularized in service, viz. 2001 and 1997 respectively, the enabling provision was absent in the statute book. If that be so, petitioners cannot get the benefit claimed in the writ petition. This position has also been clarified by the Full Bench in the judgment reported in State of Kerala V. Ponnamma(2005(4)KLT 987). In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served in directing the consideration of the matter by the Government or any other authority. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/