IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24827 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LIBY KURIAKOSE, COMPUTER OPERATOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, BOAT JETTY, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP,BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, BOAT JETTY, KOCHI-11, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R2 SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR – GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24827 of 2009 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF LETTER DTD 12.7.1999 SENT BY R2 TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER DTD 26.9.2001 IN CMP NO.23393/2001 IN O.P.NO.14849/2001. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER DTD 22.9.2005 SENT BY R2 TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DTD 22.9.2005 SENT BY R2 TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.3.2006 IN O.P.NO.14849/2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORER DTD 4.1.2008 OF R2. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 12.8.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE G.O.NO.590/06/LSGD DTD 1.3.2006 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER DTD 5.5.2006 OF R2 VIDE NO.MOH.3 UPAD/PAM/1017A/05. EXT.P10: COPY OF ORDER DTD 11.8.2006 OF R2 VIDE NO.MOH.3/14324/06. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE R2 ON 7.3.2009. EXT.P12: COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.3625/2010/LSGD DTD 19.11.2010 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24827 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is in service as a Data Entry Operator under the second respondent from 1.4.1996. Initially, the petitioner was paid daily wages and later she was paid consolidated monthly salary. In respect of regularisation, the petitioner had approached this Court and obtained Ext.P5 judgment for consideration of the petitioner's claim for regularisation. According to the petitioner, by Exts.P3 and P4 , the petitioner's case for regularisation has been recommended. Further, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to such regularisation in the light of Exts.P8 to P10 and P12. The petitioner, therefore, now seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 recommendations taking into account Exts.P8 to P10 and P12. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C)No.24827/09 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the question of regularisation of the petitioner, taking into account Exts.P3, P4, P8 to P10 and P12 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the second respondent. Till then, the interim order dated 27.8.2009 passed in this writ petition would continue to be in force. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.24827/09 3 W.P.(C)No.24827/09 4