IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1323 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13967/2009 Dated 22/05/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ S.SIVANKUTTY, PEON, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SRI.REENA C.STEPHENSON SRI.REMITHA M.A. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER. SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.A. No. 1323 OF 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was a physically challenged person who was appointed under the Department of Social Welfare as provisional hand under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules on 1.3.1999. He was terminated from service on 23.8.1999 on completion of the period of provisional appointment. While so, the Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 5.3.2005 ordering regularisation of provisional hands, who were appointed between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999. The appellant was a beneficiary of that order. Since the respondents did not take any effective action to re-appoint him, he moved this court by filing W.P.(C) No.24035/05. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 ordering to re-appoint and regularise the appellant in terms of the above mentioned Government Order. In obedience to that judgment, he was re-appointed as Peon on 5.10.2007. By Ext.P4, his probation has been declared with effect from 5.10.2008. 2. Later, the appellant filed Ext.P5 representation claiming regularisation from 1.3.1999. The said representation was rejected by WA.1323/09 : 2 : Ext.P6 order by the government. Challenging Ext.P6, Writ Petition No.13967/09 was filed. Learned single Judge noted that there is a specific provision in Ext.P2 which says that the physically challenged person shall be regularised only with effect from the date of his re- joining duty on his re-appointment. In view of the said provision, learned single Judge held that the claim of the appellant for retrospective regularisation is unsustainable. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is filed. 3. We head learned counsel for the appellant. But, we find no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the learned single Judge. In Ext.P3 judgment, this court has specifically stated that he should be re-appointed and regularised in terms of Ext.P2. One of the terms of Ext.P2 is to order regularisation with effect from the date of the incumbent re-joins duty. Therefore, we find nothing illegal with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge