IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WA.No.1098 of 2007 (E) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMNT IN WPC.14795/2005 Dated 09/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------------------- CHITTUR-TATTAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHITTUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.SREERAMAKRISHNAN SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS 1 TO 12 & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN THE WPC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CLR WORKERS UNION (INTUC), CHITTUR-TATHAMANGALAM UNIT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARUMUGHAM, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.APPASWAMY. 2. ARUMUGHAM, S/O.APPASWAMY, SWAMI VILAS ROAD, THATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 3. SAHADEVAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAM, MOOTHACHETTIKULAMB,THATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKAD. 4. VASU, S/O.CHATHU,POONGODU HOUSE, THATHAMANGALAM,PALAKKAD. 5. VELAYUDHAN, ANDI, CHENTHAMARA NAGAR, THATHAMANGALAM P.O.,PALAKKAD. WA.No.1098 of 2007 (E) -2- 6. AROGYASWAMI,S/O.CHAMIKANNE,CHINTATTU, KOLAMBU,CHENTHAMARA NAGAR, THATHAMANGALAM P.O.,PALAKKAD. 7. RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, VADAKKETHARA,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD. 8. NARAYANAN.R.,S/O.APPUKUTTY, VADAKKETHARA,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD. 9. NARAYANAN.A,S/O.APPUKUTTY, VADAKKETHARA,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD. 10. ARAVINDAKSHAN,S/O.PAZHANIMALA, VADAKKETHARA,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD. 11. SUNDARAN,S/O.ARUMUGHAN, KAVILKALAM,THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 12. BABU, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, OLAKKAN VEEDU,NEDUKKALAM,CHITTUR COLLEGE P.O., PALAKKAD. 13. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 14. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN FOR 1 TO 12 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R14 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.1098 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J Respondents 2 to 12 in the Writ Appeal were CLR workers in the appellant/ Municipality. The first respondent is their Union. They were working in the Chittur Municipality as contingent workers for a long time and by claiming the benefit of Government Orders mentioned in Ext.P1 letter of the Government dated 25/08/2001, they wanted regularisation of service and they approached this Court for the above relief. Exts.P2 and P2(a) muster roll shows that 11 contingent workers were working in the Municipality in February, 2000. It is the case of the respondents/petitioners that they were continuously working on daily wages. They were W. A. No.1098 of 2007 -2- appointed as CLR workers after considering the norms for appointment of contingent workers. They are not paid Dearness Allowance or other benefits of regular employees, but only fixed daily wages. The work which were discharged by the CLR workers in the Municipality were the same as the work discharged by regular hands in Chittur Municipality and other Municipalities. As against the sanctioned posts of 52 in the Sanitation Department, there are only ten workers; but the entire work is done by the ten regular workers and the eleven CLR workers mentioned in the seniority list. The action of the Municipality in not regularising eligible persons in accordance with the Government Orders mentioned in Ext.P1 is illegal, unfair and arbitrary. Petitioners whose names are mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3 have been working much prior to February, 1999. W. A. No.1098 of 2007 -3- 2. Ext.P1 issued by the Government shows that direction was issued by the Government that those contingent workers working on or before 31/12/2000 shall be regularised. Government also ordered that thereafter no contingent workers shall be employed. To counter this, Ext.R1 was produced wherein it was directed by the Government that to those provisional employees who are appointed against posts which can be appointed only through PSC, no regularisation can be granted without the consent of the PSC. These posts are not reserved for appointment through PSC. So Ext.R1 is not applicable. It is also proved that in other Municipalities the Government Orders mentioned in Ext.P1 Government letter was implemented. Employment of contingent workers after Ext.P1 is illegal. After considering the factual situation, the learned Single Judge held as follows:- W. A. No.1098 of 2007 -4- “It is clear from the additional counter affidavit submitted by the Municipality that previously there were 62 permanent employees for the Municipality for doing sanitation works and that presently the strength of permanent employees for doing sanitation work has become reduced to 11 due to retirement of permanent employees and that it is to cope up for the shortage of workers to attend to sanitation work that the Municipality is engaging CLR workers. It is stated in the very same additional counter affidavit that including the 11 petitioners altogether 17 persons are engaged to work on daily wage basis as and when work is to be done. It is also stated that Kudumbasree workers are also engaged on daily wages for doing the work. I do not think that the Municipality will be justified in contending that the services of the petitioners are not necessary in the Municipality. Attending to sanitation work within the area of the Municipality will be absolutely necessary since the same falls within the realm of the essential functions of the local authority. A municipality which had a sanctioned strength of 62 permanent employees to attend to sanitation work is presently having only 11 permanent employees and it is transparently clear that the Municipality is engaging CLR workers daily to attend to sanction work. Even though the counter affidavits successively filed try to project the financial constraints of the Municipality, significantly the Municipality has not produced any material to support the case that the Municipality is in so dire financial straits. It is clear that the services of the 11 petitioners are being utilised every day and that the diffidence of the Municipality to recruit them into regular service is only because of the realisation that upon regularization they will have to be paid increments and allowances admissible to regular employees and not just daily wages which are being presently paid to them. I am of the view that a municipality which is presently having only 11 regular hands as against a sanctioned strength of 62 in the Sanitation Department is not justified in W. A. No.1098 of 2007 -5- not relying on Ext.P1 and the Government Orders mentioned therein which are bound to be followed by the Municipality.“ 3. It is admitted that these CLR workers are even now working as daily wage workers and apart from them other casual workers were also engaged for sanitation work. Considering the fact that this work is essential for the Municipality and considering the facts of this case, we are of the view that respondents/ petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P1 order and no interference is necessary in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4. Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-