IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 20471 of 2000(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. ALPHONSE @ CHELLATHURAI, S/O. VARHGESE, PUTHEN VEEDU, P.O., VARAKKARA, VADANTHOLE, VIA. ALAGAPPANAGAR, THRISSUR DISTT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (b) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNEMNT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHIMONY DAM PROJECT DIVISION, CHIMONY DAM P.O., ALAGAPPANAGAR P.O., THRISSUR DISTT. 6. KERALA STAE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 20471 of 2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.34355 OF 2000 IN O.P.NO.20471 OF 2000 CLOSED. 6.11.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE CARD ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2; COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE CARD ISSUED BY C.T. CHACKO AND COMPANY, CONTRACTORS, KULAMAVU DAM WORKS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE NO.0112 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KULAMAVU DAM DVN. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE, DATED 8.3.1984 ISSUED BY P.R. ALIYAR, ASST. ENGINEER, CHIMONI DAM PROJECT, P.O. CHIMONI DAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. EXT.P5; COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CARD NO.736 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHIMONI DAM PROJECT, CHIMONI DAM P.O. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.10.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P.S.(S.D.) 2882/98 DATED 10.11.1998 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P9; COPY OF THE LETTER NO.13431/82/99 P&D. DATED 14.9.99 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.12129/B-1/99/PWD DATED 26.11.99 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.MS NO.52/98 PWD, DATED 29.6.1998 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. OP.No. 20471 of 2000 EXT.P12: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C1/32262/99, DATED 22.11.99 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION & ADMN.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE LIST OF 125 PERSONS APPOINTED AS SLR WORKERS. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 20471 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to have worked as a casual labourer in Chimoni Dam Project Division of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He claims that having worked for more than 500 days in that project, he is entitled to regularization of service in the Kerala State Electricity Board as per orders on the subject. The petitioner’s claim was earlier considered by the Electricity Board and rejected as per Ext.P8 order. The petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.9151/99, in which this Court directed the Government to consider the petitioner’s case. The Government considered the petitioner’s case and passed Ext.P9 order, in which it was held thus: “In pursuance to the court direction government examined the case in details in consultation with the Chief Engineer, PWD(Admn), Trivandrum, and the Ex-Engineer, Irrigation Division, Thrissur. There is no concrete evidence that you had worked under Chmoni Dam Project Division Thrissur as claimed by you in the Ext.P7. The CLR workers in PWD/Irrn. Department are absorbed as SLR O.P.No.20471/2000 2 Worker/regularized in service as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the G.O. and Government letter read as first and second paper above. It is reported that you had not worked under Chimoni Dam Project Thrissur as claimed in the Ext.P7 representation. Therefore as per the rules in force your request for regularisation in service is not admissible and hence rejected” The petitioner is challenging that order. The petitioner contends that the petitioner’s case was not properly considered by the Government and he was not given an opportunity to present his case properly. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “ i) to call for the entire records of the petitioner leading to the issue of Exhibit P-9, P10, P11, P12 and P13 and quash Ext.P8, P9 & P10. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized in their service as regular worker with effect from 20-1-90 and also to get the consequential service benefits and monetary benefits with interest at the market rate; iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the inaction on the part of the respondents to regularize the petitioners’ service with effect from 20-1-90 and also to give all other consequential service benefits, backwages from 20- 1-90 with interest at the market rate, is highly illegal, arbitrary, malafide in nature, discriminatory in character, ab-initio void, unjust, unfair, unreasonable and unsustainable; O.P.No.20471/2000 3 iv) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner in PWD with effect from 20.1.1990 and to give all service benefit and to pay all consequential monetary benefits to him with effect from that date; v) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to act according to law” 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the materials placed before me by the petitioner to see whether the materials are sufficient to make out a case for regularization for the petitioner. What the petitioner relies on is Exts.P1 to P5. The petitioner’s claim for regularisation is based on his alleged period of service in the Chimoni Dam Project of the KSEB, where he claims to have worked for more than 500 days. Exts.P1 to P3 relate to his employment in the Kulamavu Dam which does not relate to Chimoni Dam Project. Therefore, EXts.P1 to P3 cannot be relied upon for the purpose of deciding whether the petitioner had worked in the Chimoni Dam Project Division based on which only the petitioner claims regularization. Ext.P4 is a certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Chimoni Dam Project which reads thus: O.P.No.20471/2000 4 “This is to certify that Sri. C. Slphonse, Puthenveedu, Kulamavu P.O., Idukki District is known to as for the last two years. He is well experienced in all kinds of Civil works especially in Masonry works. He bears great talent in the art of Masonry. His character and conduct are good. He is not related to me”. That does not even indicate that the petitioner had worked in the Chimoni Dam Project for any period. Ext.P5 is a copy of the identity card stated to have been issued to the petitioner for having worked in the Chimoni Dam Project. But that document would not show the number of days the petitioner had worked in Chimoni Dam Project. Admittedly for claiming regularization as per the orders on the subject, the petitioner has to prove that he had worked for 500 days in the Chimoni Dam Project. He has not been able to produce any material before me to show that he had actually worked for more than 500 days in Chimoni Dam Project. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.20471/2000 5