IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 6428 of 2006(M) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. C.PONNUKUTTAN, `POOLACKKAL' HOUSE, KARIPPODE.P.O, PALAKKAD. 2. C.BALAN, `PULLUPPARA' HOUSE, KALAPPETTI.P.O, PALAKKAD. 3. V.UNNIKRISHNAN, `VARAMPALLAM' HOUSE, KALLEKKAD.P.O, PALAKKAD-678 015. BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KUTTIYADI IRRIGATION PROJECT, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROJECT CIRCLE, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KANNUR. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Scl. WP(C).No. 6428 of 200 6(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.6/90/PW & T DATED 20.1.1990. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.1997 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P NO.21360/1997 P3: THE PHOTOCOPY OF EXT.P3 REPRESENTATION REFERRED TO IN EXT.P2 JUDGMENT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTs IN CMP NO.16273/1998 IN O.P NO.21360/1997 P5: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.EE2-142898 DATED 15.6.1998 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. P6: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P NO.20283/1998. P7: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.7.2005 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.EE2-119000/05 DATED 7.10.2005 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9 SERIES: THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CASUAL LABOUR ROLLS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVI FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN APPLICATION DATED 6.12.2005 IN O.P NO.21360/1997. P11: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.EE2-11900-05 DATED 3.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE Scl. S.SIRI JAGAN, J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6428 of 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners in this writ petition were Casual Labour Roll (CLR) workers of the Kuttiyadi Irrigation Project of the Government of Kerala. This writ petition has been filed as a sequel to other earlier writ petitions for getting benefits of regularization in service, in accordance with Ext.P1 order dated 21/1/1990. Petitioners filed O.P.No.21360/1997, in which by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed consideration of the petitioners' claim. In accordance with Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioners' claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not seek their reliefs on or before 31/7/1992. Petitioners again approached this Court and obtained Ext.P2 judgment in O.P.No.21360/1997 directing reconsideration of their claim. The petitioners were also permitted to produce evidence regarding their prior service. Pursuant to the judgment, the petitioners filed Ext.P9 series of documents, which are said to be photo copies of their attendance registers maintained in the office where they worked. W.P.(C) No.6428 of 2006 2 2. The production of those documents have been acknowledged by the second respondent in the affidavit accompanying an I.A for extension of time to comply with Ext. P6 judgment, which is produced in this writ petition as Ext.P10. But despite the production of those documents, by Ext.P11 order dated 3/2/2006, their claim was again rejected on the ground that the petitioners failed to submit any documents to prove their claim. It is challenging Ext.P11 order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking of the following reliefs: “i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P11 and quash the same. ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to absorb the Petitioners in service of the Public Works Department as S.L.R/C.L.R workers in the light of Ext.P1 Government Order. iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to to consider Ext.P3 representation on merits dehors Ext.P11 and pass appropriate orders thereon in the light of Ext.P9 series after affording the Petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing and within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iv) To declare that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Ext.P1 Government Order. “ 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition. Therein also, the first respondent repeated that the petitioners failed to submit any documentary evidence to W.P.(C) No.6428 of 2006 3 prove their claim. In another part of the same affidavit, it is stated that no solid proof regarding their casual labour roll service has been produced. 4. I considered the rival contentions in detail. The production of Ext.P9 series of documents have been categorically admitted by the second respondent in Ext.P10 affidavit accompanying the I.A seeking extension of time which as reads as follows: “ They produced certain photo copies of the casual labour rolls in order to prove their claim. As the said documents were not properly countersigned by the concerned officer, a report was called for from the Executive Engineer, Kuttiyadi Irrigation Project Division, Perambra on 19/10/2005 where the petitioners claimed to have worked. The said report called for is essential for considering the claim of the petitioner. “ Ext.P11 reads as follows: “ In the judgment read 1st paper above, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala have directed the first respondent, that is the Chief Engineer, PWD Administration, Thiruvananthapuram to look in to the applications filed by the petitioners with notice to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, with in a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment. The petitioners were heard in person on 6/10/2005 and 15/10/2005. But they are failed to submit any documents that prove their claim. The Executive Engineer, KYIP Division, Perambra vide letter read 2nd above has reported that no original documentary evidence in respect of the petitioners is available in that Division or in the Sub Division offices. Thus the petitioners had failed to prove their CLR service prior to 19/5/83 as laid down in G.O.(P) No.6/90/PW&T dt. 20/1/1990. In the above circumstances as the petitioners have not satisfied the conditions laid down in G.O(P) No.6/90/PW &T dt. 20/1/1990, they are not eligible for inclusion of their names in the CLR seniority list and for regularization in service. “ W.P.(C) No.6428 of 2006 4 5. In view of the statement in Ext.P10 and in Ext.P11 order the petitioners have not filed any document in support of their claim is patently incorrect. Evidently, the petitioners are Class IV employees, who cannot be expected to have certified copies of attendance registers and other documents kept in the offices of Government Departments. They have done the next best thing. They have obtained the photo copy of some registers which according to them would prove their claim. Petitioners have been fighting for justice ever since 1997. The respondents have been successfully prolonged consideration of their claim despite two judgments of this Court, citing one reason or another. I am of the opinion that it is unbecoming of successive Governments, who claim to be the champions of the working class to deny or refuse to consider the claims of the working class on flimsy objections, which is what the respondents in this case have done. The minimum they could have done is to say why Ext.P9 series of documents cannot be accepted as proof of the claim of the petitioners, which also they have not done. At this point of time, I am not inclined to W.P.(C) No.6428 of 2006 5 permit the respondent to do even the same. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioners should be considered on the basis of Ext.P9 series of documents themselves. If Ext.P9 series of documents is sufficient to prove their claim, in accordance with the Ext.P1 order, the same shall be accepted. Meaning thereby that, if Ext.P9 shows that the petitioners had worked for the minimum number of days as stipulated in Ext.P1, the same shall be accepted as proof of their claim. In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P11 and direct the second respondent to re-consider the claims of the petitioners on the basis of Ext. P9 series of documents and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE su