IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30972 of 2003(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.RAJAPPAN S/O. LATE NANU, AGED 54 YEARS DEFEDAR, CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT PARUVAPARAMBIL, THRIKODITHANAM P.O., VESHNAL, CHANGANASSERRY. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHANGANSSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI FOR R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 30972/03 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.770/88/FIN DATED 27.10.1988 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.564/89/FIN DATED 29.11.1989 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.19661/A3/92/LAD DATED 27.11.1992 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) NO.86/94/LAD DATED 7.1.1994 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G5.1105/73/CMC DATED 24.1.1975 OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CHANGANACHERRY. EXT.P6:- PHOTO COPY OF THE MEMO NO.G5-3377/2001 DATED 1.10.2002 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 9.12.1999 ON CMP NO.21104 OF 1999 IN OP NO.13104 OF 1999 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE Okb/- P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.30972 of 2003 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Siby Mathew, the learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner entered service as Full-time Contingent Worker on 1.8.1969. Later, at his request he was promoted as Peon as per Ext.P5 order dated 24.1.1975. Along with the petitioner, two other persons, namely, Sri.R.Parameswaran Pillai, Watcher and Sri.E.Madhavan, Sweeper had also applied for promotion to the post of Peon. Their requests were also granted as per Ext.P5. Sri.R.Parameswaran Pillai and Sri.E.Madhavan raised a claim that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain 60 years of age. Their claim was considered by the Government and by Ext.P9 order dated 18.7.2006, the Government upheld their claim and held that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain 60 years of age. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner claims the said relief. 3. The petitioner's date of birth is 4.3.1949. He completed 55 years of age on 31.3.2004. However, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 17.3.2004, which was later extended on WP(C) 30972/03 -: 2 :- 14.9.2004, he continued in service. The order of stay is even now in force. The petitioner will attain the age of 60 years on 31.3.2009. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing today, Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submited that in the light of the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P9, the petitioner who is similarly placed as Sri.R.Parameswaran Pillai and Sri.E.Madhavan, is also entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. Smt.T.B.Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 however contended that the petitioner cannot relying on Ext.P9 claim any right to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The petitioner admittedly entered service before 7.4.1970 as Full-time Contingent employee. Had he continued as Full-time Contingent employee he would have been entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. This fact is not disputed. The respondents dispute the petitioner's entitlement to continue in service till he attains 60 years of age contending that he was promoted as Peon on his request after 7.4.1970. But Ext.P9 discloses that under various Government orders referred to therein, persons like the petitioner are entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The said benefit was extended by the Government to Sri.R.Parameswaran Pillai and Sri.E.Madhavan who were also promoted as Peon along with the WP(C) 30972/03 -: 3 :- petitioner by Ext.P5 order dated 24.1.1974. Such being the situation, the stand taken by the respondents is not tenable. In the result, Ext.P6 is quashed. The respondents are directed to retain the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 3/12