IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15859 of 2003(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. P.PRASAD, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.HEAD WORKS SUB DIVISION, ALUVA. 2. K.P.SUNNY, IIIRD GRADE OVERSEER, W.S.P.SECTION II, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. S.PHILIP, IIIRD GRADE OVERSEER, P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MAVELIKKARA. 4. B.JYOTHISH KUMAR, PUMP OPERATOR, P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANJIRAMKULAM, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 5. K.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PUMP OPERATOR, WATER SUPPLY SECTION, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 6. M.CHANDRAN, LASCAR, P.W.S.S.SECTION, FILTER PLANT, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. 7. M.K.SIDHARTHAN, PEON, P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MUTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD-12. 8. A.BABURAJ, DRIVER, P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DIST. 9. K.P.SHAJI, PUMP OPERATOR, P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 10. T.K.SUDARSANAN, PUMP OPERATOR, P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KIDANGORE, EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.15859/2003 11. R.LEKSHMI DEVI, L.D.CLERK, P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 12. P.SAKUNTHALA, L.D.TYPIST, P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.S.D.ASOKAN SRI.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WATER WORKS CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA R1 BY SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA R3 BY SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.289/2003 IN WPC. NO.15859/2003 DISMISSED 07/07/2010 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AIII(4) 290/98/CW. DTD. 25.11.1992 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KWA/HO/E1/15106/91 DTD. 8.12.1993 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KWA/HO/E1/15106(VOL.III) /91 DTD. 9.6.1994 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KWA/HO/E1/15106(VOLIII)/91 DTD. 19.9.1994 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AIII(4) 380/94/CW. DTD. 6.9.1994 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA /HO/E1/15106(VOL.III)/91. DTD. 4.11.1994 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA/JB/E1/9159/95 DTD. 8.5.1996 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28TH OCTOBER, 1998 IN OP. 16638/92 OF THIS HON. COURT. P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 4TH AUGUST, 1999 IN OP. 15290/98 OF THIS HON. COURT. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.393/2001/IRD. DTD. 29.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/JB/E1-4505/2001 DTD. 26.9.2001 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. KW/HO/E1/1999/95 DTD. 25.1.1997 ISSEUD BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 7TH NOVEMBER 2002 IN W.A. NO.2636/1998 ETC. OF THIS HONOURABLE. P16:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/JB/E1/627/2003 DTD. 29.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.540/94/FIN. DTD. 30TH SEPTEMBER 1994, ISSUED BY THE GOVT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.15859 OF 2003(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Though the petitioners were initially appointed on provisional basis during the year 1989-90, subsequently, as part of the implementation of judgment of the Apex Court in Jacob's Case (1990(2) KLT 673) Exts.P10 and P11 orders were issued regularizing their service. That order was issued at a time when W.A.No.2636/98 filed by the petitioners claiming regularization was pending. On the dismissal of the writ petition by Ext.P8 judgment, the aforesaid writ appeal was filed. Subsequent to their regularization the writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P13 judgment directing the Water Authority to consider their requesting for reckoning of the past service rendered by the petitioners. Accordingly, the issue was considered and Ext.P14 order was issued. In Ext.P14, the claim for reckoning the past service was rejected by the Water Authority and the reasons are stated in paragraph 5 of the order, which reads as under. “In a similar case filed by Smt. Sajeeda .Y (O.P.No.31316/2001) before the Hon'ble High Court, Government of Kerala gave a disposal which more or less echoes the above views of WPC.No. 15859/03 :2 : Kerala Water Authority. The thrust of the disposal given by Government of Kerala is reproduced verbatim below. “During these years the petitioner and persons included in the 4th category had sufficient time and opportunities to obtain regular appointment through Public Service Commission. Normally provisional employees are not entitled to be regularized in service. But in the instant case Government had taken a lenient view and had regularized the provisional employees as a special case overriding the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission. No more concession seems necessary. Since 19.9.1990 onwards Public Service Commission was advising candidates in different categories, and hence it will be doing great injustice to the regular recruits if retrospective effect is given to the regularization of the 4th group of person. It will upset the existing seniority of the Public Service Commission recruits and thereby cause complications and never ending litigations. The request of Smt. Sajeeda. Y ., Assistant Engineer Kerala Water Authority for regularization with effect from 19.9.1990 cannot be considered in the light of the facts stated above and Government stick on earlier stand. The representation of Smt. Sajeeda. Y is disposed of accordingly. After taking into consideration all the above aspects Kerala Water Authority has decided not to deviate from its earlier stand with regard to the date of regularization of the service of the 4th category of provisional employees coming under the purview of the Supreme Court judgment dated 19.9.1990 and in conformity with the above stand and also in view of G.O(P)540/94/Fin. dated 30.9.1994 the request of the petitioner is disposed of WPC.No. 15859/03 :3 : accordingly.” It is challenging Ext.P14 that this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are entitled to have their past service counted. Petitioners also rely on the Government Order dated 22.11.1998, where similar benefit were allegedly extended to certain employees. 3. However, on behalf of respondents, the judgment of this court in Shanmugam V. Kerala Water Authority (2004(2)KLT 529) has been relied on, which show that dealing with similar claim raised by certain other employees of the Water Authority who were also initially appointed on ad hoc basis, this court held that they will be entitled to count service for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits, only from the respective date of the orders of regularization. It is pointed out that the appeal and SLP filed against the said judgment have been dismissed and that the judgment has become final. 4. Thus law has been settled by this court in the judgments referred above, in the case of employees of Water Authority itself who also commenced service in the manner as the WPC.No. 15859/03 :4 : petitioners, to the effect that they can count their service only from the date when their service was ordered to be regularized. Necessarily therefore, this principle has to be applied to the case of the petitioners and if so the conclusion in Ext.P14 cannot be faulted. True the counsel for the petitioners relied on the Government Order dated 22.11.1998 Evidently this Government Order is prior to the law laid down in the judgment referred to above and therefore cannot be adopted as a precedent for this court to follow the same and grant relief to the petitioners. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 15859/03 :5 : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.15859 OF 2003(K) ------------------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Dated.7.7.2010