IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 14337 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.RAJAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS S.L.R.WORKER, M.T.SECTION VATAKARA, RESIDING AT 1/4B K.Y.I.P. QUARTERS, PUDUPPANAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES(IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROJECT CIRCLE, KANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VATAKARA SECTION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 14337/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 34017/2001. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.8.02. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.22.11.05. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 2212/06 OF THIS COURT. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.2.9.06 BY R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 14337 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was engaged as a CLR worker from 1982 onwards under the Kuttiyadi Irrigation Project Division of the Water Resources Department of the Government of Kerala. He was later absorbed as an SLR worker. He staked a claim for absorption in the permanent cadre, which was rejected by Ext.P5 order. According to the petitioner, as per the Government order on the subject, the petitioner is entitled to be so absorbed and, therefore, Ext.P5 order is liable to be interfered with and the petitioner is liable to be directed to be absorbed in service. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent contending that for being eligible for regularization in service, a CLR worker should have been in service as on 1.4.1987 and he should have put in 500 days or more of work as on that date. In the petitioner's case, although he was originally engaged from 26.7.1982 to 1.4.1987, he had actually worked only for 26 days during the said period and, therefore, he has not satisfied the eligibility conditions for being absorbed in regular service, is his contention. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner has no case that even without 500 days of actual work, he is eligible for absorption in service. Then the only other w.p.c.14337/07 2 question is as to whether the petitioner had 500 days of work as on 1.4.1987. The petitioner has no definite case that he actually worked for 500 days. The petitioner has also not produced any material whatsoever to disprove the averments of the 1st respondent and to show that the petitioner had in fact 500 days of work to his credit. In the above circumstances, clearly, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for regular absorption in service. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge