IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31786 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.MOHAMMED KOYA, LABOURER, WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, AGATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. 2. T.K.P.SAINUL ABID, LABOURER, WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, AGATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. 3. K.NADER KOYA, LABOURER, WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, AGATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. 4. A.P.UKKAS, LABOURER, WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, AGATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADVS. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS, SMT.JANCY ALEX. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI, LAKSHADWEEP. 2. THE COLLECTOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. 3. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (LABOUR) LAKSHADWEEP. 4. THE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH OF AGATTI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AGATTI. W.P.(C). NO.31786/2008-H: 5. THE CHAIRPERSON, VILLAGE DWEEP PANCHAYATH, AGATTI. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. 7. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. R1 TO R3, R6 & R7 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,S.C,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN., R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.YUSUFF ISSUDDIN, SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31786/2008-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE P.1. DTD. 07/06/1990. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE P.2. DTD. 12/07/90. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE P.3. DTD. 25/05/1994. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE P.4. DTD. 20/09/1994. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.7 DTD. 02/02/1995. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE HAND RECEIPT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER F. NO. W (XII)/SE/739/88 DTD. 29/06/1994. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPORT MADE BY THE SUB COMMITTEE DTD. 08/07/04. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.18238/04 DTD. 20/12/2004. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 06/10/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.31786 of 2008 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are working as Casual Labourers engaged in the Water Supply Scheme for the Islands of Lakshadweep. It would appear that initially the up keep, maintenance and distribution of drinking water to the residents of Agatti island was originally undertaken by the P.W.D. and later it was entrusted to AWAM Society. Subsequently, the matter was entrusted on the Village (Dweep) Panchayat, Agatti and all the labourers engaged for the programme of up keep, maintenance and distribution of drinking water came under the Village (Dweep) Panchayat. Accordingly, the petitioners herein, who were engaged from 1990 onwards for the Water Supply Scheme in the Lakshadweep Islands are now continuing to be engaged by the Village Panchayat. 2. They claimed regularization and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and in OA No.820/2001 filed by them, the Administrator was ordered to regularize their services. That order WP(C) No.31786/2008 -2- was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.18238/2004 and the writ petition was allowed by Ext.P9 judgment dated 20/12/2004. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners moved Ext.P10 application before the 1st respondent requesting for regularization and also for parity with group D employees in the matter of pay. Orders were not passed on Ext.P10 and at that stage, the writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct respondents 1 to 4 to fix salary of the petitioners as that of other labourers working in various Panchayat equal to that of Group D employees and pay the same with retrospective effect. There is also an alternative prayer to pay the salary of NMR mates with retrospective effect and to regularize them in the permanent establishment of the Panchayat. 4. Insofar as the claim for regularization is concerned, in view of Ext.P9 judgment, the claim can only be made against the Panchayat, which is now entrusted with the task of up keep, maintenance and distribution of drinking water in the Islands. Insofar as regularization claimed is concerned, going by the judgment of the Constitution Bench reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006(4) SCC 1) WP(C) No.31786/2008 -3- and the other subsequent judgments, such claim is permissible only in the case of employees who were found to be irregularly appointed and not illegally appointed. In this case, there is dearth of materials in this behalf and therefore, this Court will not be justified in pronouncing on this issue or issuing any direction in that behalf. 5. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners for equal pay with other similarly situated employees engaged in other Panchayats are concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 & 5, it is contended that the petitioners are being paid by the Panchayat subject to availability of the funds released by the Superintending Engineer, Lakshadweep Public Work Department from time to time. Thus, the stand of the Panchayat appears to be one of dearth of resources to meet any liability arising out of the claim of employees like the petitioners. In view of such averment, it is for the Administrator to consider whether additional funds can be released to meet the additional liability that the Panchayat may have to discharge. It is seen that the petitioners have already approached the Administrator by Ext.P10 about the inadequate wages that are WP(C) No.31786/2008 -4- being paid and requesting to revise the same. 6. Thus in view of the stand taken by the Panchayat in its counter affidavit, that it can meet the liability only if funds are released by the Administrator, and since the claim made by the petitioners in this behalf by Ext.P10 is pending consideration of the Administrator, I direct the Administrator to consider the claim and pass orders thereon. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the above observations made will not stand in the way of the petitioners pursuing their remedies in appropriate proceedings. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg