IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 4192 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.BHAGAYALAKSHMI, NOW WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER, KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, MAMALA UNIT, MAMALA P.O., KOCHI-03. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., A KERALA GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING COMPANY HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4192 OF 2009 (Y) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an order dated 16.4.1994, by which the petitioner was appointed as a Personal Assistant to the Chairman and Managing Director of the 2nd respondent company. By Ext.P2 order her service was confirmed. Later by Ext.P3 order dated 29.3.1997, she was re-designated as Stenographer and was posted to the Marketing Department. 2. Subsequently, along with more than 166 employees, her services were ordered to be terminated by Ext.P4. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of Ext.P4, petitioner and others were retained and they continued in service. Ext.P4 order was challenged before this court in O.P.No.16404/97 and during its pendency on 17.6.2005, 145 persons affected by Ext.P4 oder were reinstated in service, leaving out 4 of the terminated employees, for the reason that the posts held by them were those within the purview of the PSC and therefore any engagement cannot be done otherwise than with the concurrence of the PSC. WPC.No. 4192/09 :2 : 3. Meanwhile, petitioner filed a representation for regularization and seeking consideration of the representation she approached this court and filed WP(c).No.5285/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing consideration of her representation with notice to her. Finally Government issued Ext.P10 order, relevant portion of which reads as under. “Government have examined the case in detail and are pleased to direct Managing Director, Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Limited to regularize the service of the said four provisional employees who are continuing for a long time in the company with effect from the date of their appointment in the Krala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Limited on the basis of the High Court judgment in 5285/08, taking into account of the judgment (in 2007(4) KLT 513) of the Supreme Court overruling the advice of Public Service Commission. “ 4. Ext.P10 therefore orders that employees mentioned in the order should be regularized in service from the date of their appointment and this order was issued taking into account their long continuance in service. In Ext.P10 it is also stated that the petitioner joined service of the company on 18.4.1994. Evidently, therefore by Ext.P10 she is entitled to have her service regularized from 18.4.1994, the date of which she was appointed by the 2nd WPC.No. 4192/09 :3 : respondent. However, when by Ext.R2(e), company issued consequential order regularizing the service of the petitioner, it regularized her service without mentioning the effective date of her regularization. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is now confined to two issues. One is that as against her entitlement for regularization from the date of her appointment she has been regularized only with prospective effect from the date of Ext.R2(g) dated 18.4.1994. The other grievance is that though she was appointed as Personal Assistant to the Chairman and Managing Director she is now regularized in the post of Stenographer. 6. The company resists the prayer sought by the petitioner. According to the company, regularization itself was impermissible and in spite of it the company generously regularized the service of the petitioner prospectively by Ext.R2(e). It is stated that PSC was against such regularization and it is despite the same Government ordered regularization. It is also contended that the petitioner having been re-designated by Ext.P3 as Stenographer, she could not have been regularized as Personal Assistant. WPC.No. 4192/09 :4 : 7. First issue to the decided is regarding the effective date of regularization. In my view, this does not admit of much controversy for the reason that the entitlement of the petitioner is to be decided within the four corners of Ext.P10, the Government Order dated 1.9.2008. This order has not been challenged by anybody. A reading of this order shows that the petitioner commenced her service from 18.4.1994 and regularization was ordered from the date of her appointment. If that be so, the company has to regularize her from the date of her appointment, viz. 18.4.1994. To that extent the stand of the company is unsustainable. 8. The other issue that is to be addressed is the post on which the petitioner is entitled to be regularized. Regularization can only be against the post held by an incumbent. At the time of her termination, by Ext.P5 she was holding the post of stenographer and in Ext.P10 order also the designation of the petitioner is shown as Stenographer. If that be so, the regularization ordered in the post of stenographer by Ext.R2(e) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the regularization of the Petitioner as Stenographer as per Ext.R2(e) WPC.No. 4192/09 :5 : upheld and directing that such regularization shall be effective from 18.4.1994 as mentioned in Ext.P5 order. Consequential benefits shall be quantified and disbursed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/