IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 8569 of 2004(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. VELUTHAKUNJU, CHARUVILAYIL HOUSE, CHITTOOR P.O., AGALI, ATTAPPADI, NOW WORKING AS S.L.R., P.W.D. ROADS SECTION, MANJERI. BY ADV. MR.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, (IRRIGATIION AND ADMINISTRATION) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS AND BRIDGES, NORTH CIRCLE, CALICUT 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (ROADS), CHAMRAVATTOM PROJECT DIVISION, EASWARAMANGALAM P.O., THAVANOOR 7. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (P.W.D.), ROADS DIVISION, KOZHIKODE CIRCLE, MANJERI. 8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROADS AND BRIDGES CIRCLE), KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8569/2004-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E3-8904/97 DTD. 10/11/97 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) MANJERI. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINER, PWD, A.V.I.P. SECTION III, ATTAPPADY, AGALI. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 08/04/92 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERAL WORKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E3.545/92 DTD. 04/05/1992 ALONG WITH EXTRACT PROFORMA SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D. & ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.193/95/PW&T DTD. 08/02/1995 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. O & M (2)4 94691/88(3) DTD. 07/04/1995 ISSUED TO THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CONCERNED. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C8/13716/97 DTD. 30/05/97 ALONG WITH ENDORSEMENT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C3/13/91 DTD. 27/08/97 SENT BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER TO THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXT.P.8.A: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE WORK DONE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8.B: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE WORK DONE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O.(P) 6/90 PW & T DT.D 20/01/90. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E4-707/95 VOL.I DTD. 10/08/000 TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E1/10934/97 DTD. 18/01/2000 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINER, KOZHIKODE TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 20/01/00 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E17/98 DTD. 19/08/2000 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER TO THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, MANJERI. EXT.P.13.A: COPY OF THE PROFORMA ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER TO THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SUB DIVISION, MANJERI. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/06/03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. W.P.(C). NO.8569/2004-T: EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/07/2003 IN W.P. NO. 20839/03 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SINGLE JUDGE. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EE2-27866/03 DTD. 21/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8569 OF 2004 =================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be working as an SLR since 19/11/1997. According to the petitioner, he has worked as CLR from 10/1/1971 to 19/8/84. He claimed regularization and that was not accepted. Thereupon he filed WP(C) No.20839/03 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment directing the Chief Engineer (Administration) to consider and pass orders on the representations made by the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of hearing. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner was heard and his claim for regularization was rejected by Ext.P17 order. A reading of Ext.P17 order shows that according to the Chief Engineer, there was no documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner had more than 500 days of CLR service. It is challenging Ext.P17, this writ petition is filed. Thus, a perusal of Ext.P17 shows that the reason for rejecting the petitioner's application is the absence of documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner had more than 500 days of CLR service. WPC.No.8569 /04 :2 : 3. Counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P7, Ext.P8, P10, P11 and P13 to contradict the findings in Ext.P17. Ext.P7 is a communication from Chief Engineer to the Executive Engineer forwarding a representation made by the petitioner for remarks. Accordingly, the matter reached the Assistant Executive Engineer who submitted Ext.P8 report to the Executive Engineer on 27/8/1997. In this communication, the Assistant Executive Engineer has stated that the total working days of the petitioner comes to 550 days. Along with Ext.P8, he had enclosed Exts.P8(a) and P8(b). Ext.P8(a) certified that the petitioner had worked for 132 days while Ext.P8(b) certified that the petitioner had worked for 418 days. Based on Ext.P8, Executive Engineer submitted Ext.P10, a favourable recommendation to the Chief Engineer. Ext.P11 is yet another recommendation submitted by the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer again on the basis that the petitioner had more than 500 days of CLR service and therefore he may be absorbed as a worker as requested by him. Ext.P13 is also a communication of the Assistant Engineer to the Assistant Executive Engineer, which also recommends the case of the petitioner for regularization on the basis that he had rendered WPC.No.8569 /04 :3 : 550 days service as CLR. 4. A reading of Ext.P17 discloses that the Chief Engineer has passed the said order without adverting to the aforesaid documents. When the claim of the petitioner for regularization was considered by the Chief Engineer, he ought to have referred to the aforesaid documents and having not done so, I must conclude that Ext.P17 reflects total non application of mind. For that reason, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P17 and direct that the matter shall be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly Ext.P17 order is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter. Needless to say that orders as above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp