IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35179 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SHIJI, W/O.LALAN, AGED 48 YEARS, CHULLIKKATTU HOUSE, CHERIYA PALLAMTHURUTH, N.PARUR. 2. G.SURESH, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 44 YEARS, MANAKKAPPARAMBIL, KIZHAKKEPRAM, PERUVARAM, N.PARUR. 3. UDAYAN, S/O.GOPINATHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, MAVARUPADAM HOUSE, CHAVARICKAL, 172 HARIJAN COLONY KIZHEKKEPRAM, N.PARUR. 4. THILOTHAMA, W/O.SAJEEV, SRAMBIKKAL, NEENDOOR, N.PARUR. 5. BINDU BABU, W/O.BABU, ALINGAPPOKKAM COLONY, PATHUPPILLY, VAMIYAKKAD, N.PARUR. 6. SATHI SIMON, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SIMON, KADEEPPARAMBIL, NEENDOOR P.O., VADAKKEKKARA, N.PARUR. 7. ACHUKUTTY, S/O.APPU, AGED 44 YEARS, MURIKKEPARAMBIL, KEDAMANGALAM, N.PARUR. 8. RENJITH, S/O.BABY, KAVUMKA PARAMBIL, HARIJAN COLONY, NANTHIATTUKUNNAM, N.PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.L.DEVADAS SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. N.PARUR MUNICIPALITY, N.PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, N.PARUR. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES, PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY FOR R1 R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 35179 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are CLR workers attached to the 1st respondent Municipality. They claim regularisation in the service on the ground that they had worked for about 10 years without any break. They have filed Ext.P9 representation urging their claim. It is stated that even their representation is not considered. 2. I heard learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Having regard to the contentions raised in Ext.P9 this Writ Petition is disposed of directing that Ext.P9 shall be considered by the 1st respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that petitioners are allowed to continue in service till the disposal of Ext.P9. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb