IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 9107 of 2009(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.P.ROSY, PUTHUR HOUSE, MUKKATTUKARA ,NETTISSERY PO, THRISSUR 680001. BY ADVS. SRI. MADHAVAN NAIR SRI.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. AGRICULTURE (FARMS) DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER THRISSUR 680 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9107/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.11.1991 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR. P2:- COPY OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DTD. 26.10.1991 BY THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 7.8.2008 SUBMITTED TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 5.6.1998 IN OP. 11323/91 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.8.1997 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MANNUTHY SEED FARM. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 25.3.1991 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE, KERALA HIGH COURT. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DTD. 4.10.2008 OF THE GOVT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 9107 of 2009-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was a casual worker under the Agricultural Mannuthy Agricultural Farm on daily wages from 1962. Mainly it is contended that she is entitled for pension and retirement benefits. Even going by the pleas raised by the petitioner, she was enrolled as a casual worker in 1962 on payment of 50 paise per day. The petitioner had submitted an application before the Chief Minister on 10.10.1991 and accordingly she was provisionally regularised. According to the petitioner, even after issuance of Exts.P1 and P2 she was denied employment. But really, the said orders were under challenge before this Court in O.P.No.11323/1991 wherein, an interim order was passed. It was finally disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing to verify the records of attendance and to pass fresh orders. Ext.P7 is the proceedings showing that her claims were considered. According to the petitioner, she was not getting any communication in the meanwhile, and hence she did not join. It is further pointed out that even after Ext.P1, she was ordered to be continued as a casual worker. Finally, by Ext.P7 the petitioner was directed to approach for relief under wpc 9107/2009 2 the Chief Minister's Relief Fund through the District Collector. 2. Shri S. Madhavan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner had been there from 1962 onwards upto 1989, she will be entitled for grant of minimum pension. It is pointed out that her labour was extracted without paying due wages and at an advanced age she is left without any source for subsistence also. The petitioner therefore prayed that at least this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant minimum pension to the petitioner who is aged and sick. 3. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that the petitioner had worked initially as a casual labourer. Even though Exts.P1 and P2 orders were issued, that had to be cancelled and she had to be reverted as a casual labourer. The petitioner in the original petition which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment, was claiming seniority over the petitioner. Accordingly, as per the directions of this Court various aspects were gone into meticulously and the petitioner was found not eligible for rgularisation. She was asked to join duty and continue as casual labourer, but it appears that she did not join back and was removed from the list of casual labourers on 18.10.1992. Thereafter, considering her plight, the petitioner was asked to join back as per Ext.P5 letter. It is further pointed wpc 9107/2009 3 out that regularisation of casual labourers was being done in tune with the standing directions and precedence. It is also stated that casual labourers with 240 days of work in the preceding year are made permanent labourers subject to seniority. It is further stated that terminal benefits are granted to permanent labourers only and in the absence of rgularisation, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of pension. 4. Therefore, the scenario that is evident from the pleadings is that the petitioner's service as casual labourer was terminated without regularisation. Still, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the length of period during which she had rendered casual service, she should be granted some benefit, otherwise she will not be able to lead her normal life. In the absence of any scheme or Government Orders which enable the grant of pension to casual labourers, this Court will not be justified in upholding the right of the petitioner and in issuing a direction to the respondents. 5. In that view of the matter, I cannot agree with the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But still, as informed to the petitioner by Ext.P8, she can approach the Hon'ble Chief Minister for any financial assistance through the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. It is pointed out in Ext.P8 that she can file appropriate application to the District Collector, to wpc 9107/2009 4 get such benefits. 6. If an appropriate representation is filed along with a copy of this judgment through the District Collector for relief from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, the same will be considered sympathetically and all benefits will be extended to the petitioner without any further delay. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/