IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19118 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. AYYAPPAN.C., HOUSE NO.19, MUNICIPAL HARIJAN COLONY, KOTTAYAM. 2. GURUSWAMY, HOUSE NO.481-C, KOSAMATTOM COLONY, PARAMPUZH P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 032. 3. S.MURUGHAN, HOUSE NO.34A, KOSAMATTOM COLONY, PARAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM- 686 032. 4. PERUMAL THAMPI.C., NETHAJI NAGAR, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-2. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19118 of 2007 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL DATED 15.11.95 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE FIRST AND THIRD PETITIONERS WERE WORKING AT THE MUNICIPALITY EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL DATED 13.10.98 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE 2ND PETITIONER WAS WORKING AT THE MUNICIPALITY EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).91/01 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPNODENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST AND 4TH PETITIONERS EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.7.07 IN W.P.(C).32250/03 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19118/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are CLR workers employed in the Kottayam Municipality. In this writ petition, they seek regularization of their services relying on Ext.P3 Government Order dated 29.3.2001. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P7 judgment of this Court wherein the claims of similarly placed persons were considered and upheld by this Court. The operative portion of Ext.P7 judgment reads as follows:- A counter is filed, wherein it is stated inter alia as follows: “No appointment has been made after 31.3.2004 to the post of last grade employees. The last order of appointment made by the Municipality to the last grade employees is 20.9.2003. No casual employee included in the list has been appointed overlooking the seniority of the petitioners.” It is further stated that the petitioners' right will come only after exhausting the list of W.P.(C).19118/2007 2 employees who are sponsored by the employment exchange. It is also further stated that as and when the turn of the petitioners arise, they will be appointed to the last grade after exhausting the first list containing the names of those who were appointed through the Employment Exchange. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent, Municipality, to consider their claims in the light of Ext.P7 judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, while disputing the entitlement of the petitioners to claim the benefits flowing from Ext.P7 judgment, submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the Municipality has taken the stand that petitioners are not eligible for regularization, they will consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the stand taken by the Municipality in Ext.P7 judgment and the directions issued therein. W.P.(C).19118/2007 3 3. Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioners in Ext.P6 representation in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. Needless to say, it will be open to the petitioners to file a further representation setting out their grievances and claims. Such a representation shall be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall, within three months thereafter, consider the request made by the petitioners in Ext.P6 and also in the further representation which the petitioners may file, pass orders thereon and communicate the same to the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the first respondent, it will be open to them to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs