IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20894 of 2004(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. V. VIJAYAKUMAR, THARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM, CLR WORKER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. K. MOHANAN, THARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM, CLR WORKER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. C. DEVADASAN PILLAI, PUTHINGAL VEEDU, MURUNTHAL `A' WARD, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM, CLR WORKER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION (GW) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, STADIUM BUILDING, KOLLAM-1. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON 19/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.C No. 20894 OF 2004-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are CLR workers engaged by the State Government in the Ground Water Department. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order by which the Government declined their request for regularization. With respect to labourers working in the Ground Water Department, the Government issued an order of regularisation as per Ext.P1 on 22.9.1993. By the said order, the CLR workers in the Ground Water Department who have completed 500 days of duty as on 1.4.1987 and who were in service before 19.5.1983 were ordered to be regularised under specific conditions enumerated therein. According to the petitioners all of them have got service of duty for more than 500 days to their credit. But they were not in service before 19.5.83, which is the cut-off date prescribed under Ext.P1. The first and second petitioners were having service only from 24.5.1983 and third petitioner was having service only from 1.6.1983, is the contention of the petitioner. They were not included among those eligible under Ext.P1 order, only because they were initially engaged after few days of the cut-off date prescribed in Ext.P1. WPC No. 20894 of 2004 : 2 : When the representation filed by them was not considered by the Government, the petitioners along with another person had earlier approached this Court. As per Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the State Government to consider the representation and to pass appropriate orders with notice to the petitioners. Ext.P4 is the order issued in this regard by the State Government. 2. It is mentioned in Ext.P4 that the cut-off date (19.5.1983) for regularisation of CLR workers were fixed in Ext.P1 with an intention to include those CLR workers engaged in the drought relief work during 1983. Further, it is stated that same was a policy decision of the Government. In Ext.P4, contrary to the claim of the petitioners, it is observed that, the petitioners were engaged by the District Office, Kollam only from the year 1991 onwards. It is further observed in Ext.P1 that as far as Kollam district is concerned the number of casual labourers exceeds the actual requirement, and that there is no much scope for expansion of works in the field, as far as the Ground Water Department is concerned. Hence, the request for regularisation of petitioners was declined. 3. The question whether the petitioners need be regularised or not, is a question which is purely coming within the WPC No. 20894 of 2004 : 3 : domain of policy decision of the Government. Admittedly, the petitioners are not entitled to be included as beneficiaries of Ext.P1 order. Whether the benefit of Ext.P1 order need be extended in the case of the petitioners also, is a question which has to be decided by the Government. 4. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the findings in Ext.P4 that petitioners were engaged only from the year 1991 onwards is factually incorrect. Petitioners assert that they have records to show that they were engaged from the year 1983 onwards. The relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted because of the fact, that the petitioners have not pointed out infringement of any statutory rights vested upon them. The issue cannot be agitated in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, because the matter involved is purely within the discretion of the Government. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P4. 5. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners are disputing the findings in Ext.P4 with respect to the date of their first engagement and in view of their assertion that similarly situated other labourers were also regularised, it is for the petitioners to bring those aspects to the notice of the Government WPC No. 20894 of 2004 : 4 : to seek redressal of their grievance. Needless to say, that if the petitioners approach the Government with any such representation, the Government is free to consider the same and to take fresh decision untrammelled by dismissal of this writ petition. In other words it is clarified that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way preclude the petitioners from approaching the Government further with the same grounds for regularisation. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE kmd