IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 682 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10356/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): ---------------- V.SURESHAN, UNSKILLED WORKER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.682 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 9th April, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the interim order dated 31.3.2010 in W.P.(C) No.10356/2010, passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He claims that he was working as CLR worker under the respondents, since 7.1.1970. This submission is made, relying on Ext.P5 communication of the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.3.2010. The respondents would contend that the appellant was below the age of 18 years at the relevant time and therefore, his engagement would be treated as 'boy's service'. So, he is ineligible. We think, it is a matter to be heard in detail, in the Writ Petition. The interim relief prayed for by the petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge was to issue a direction to retain him in service beyond 31.3.2010. But, the learned Single Judge declined to grant that relief. We think, the said order of the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse and it does not call for any interference. But, we clarify that in case, the appellant finally succeeds in the Writ Petition and it is WA NO.682/10 2 found that he was entitled to be retained in service beyond 31.3.2010, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.682 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 9th April, 2010.