IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5285 of 2008(D) PETITIONER: ------------- R. BHAGYALAKSHMI, STENOGRAPHER, KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., MAMALA UNIT, MAMALA P.O., COCHIN-682 303. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., A GOVERNMENT COMPANY HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5285 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was initially appointed as a stenographer in the 2nd respondent company on 19.4.1991, originally for a period of six months. According to her, subsequently, she was appointed as a Stenographer for different periods. One such appointment, on contract basis, was pursuant to a memo dated 16.3.1992 appointing her for a period of one year with effect from 16.3.1992. Apparently, according to her, when she reported for duty, she was directed to take charge as Personal Assistant to the Chairman and Managing Director and she worked on contract basis as Personal Assistant to the Chairman and Managing Director for a period of one year from 16.3.1992. Ext.P10 would show that she was regularly appointed as a Personal Assistant to the Chairman and Managing Director and under Ext.P2 she was confirmed in the service of the company with effect from 18.10.1994 as a Personal W.P.(C).NO.5285/08 :: 2 :: Assistant to the Chairman and Managing Director. But, by Ext.P3 she was re-designated as Stenographer in the Marketing Department. While so, by Ext.P4 she received a memo to the effect that her appointment stands cancelled. Petitioner approached this court, along with others to whom similar memos were issued, in O.P.No.16404/97. Petitioner continued in service without break. Her services were not terminated. It is her further case that though she was re-designated as 'Stenographer' in the Marketing Department, she was working as the Personal Assistant to the Chairman and Managing Director and appointment to the said post does not require the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. 2. It seems that there were further developments during the pendency of W.P.(C) No.16404/97. A decision was taken at a meeting held in the Corporate Office of the company under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister essentially to revive the affairs of the company. The decision was to W.P.(C).NO.5285/08 :: 3 :: regularise the services of 145 employees of the company, who did not come within the purview of the Public Service Commission and to regularize the services of 4 other employees, whose posts come within the purview of the Public Service Commission with the concurrence of the Commission. In view of this development, the said writ petition was withdrawn and by Ext.P6 communication dated 17.6.2004 the Government requested the company to regularise the services of 145 employees. Accordingly, the services of 145 employees were regularised. The petitioner was not included therein. One of the disputes is whether the post held by the petitioner is one comprehended by the Public Service Commission Consultation Regulations and if so whether the concurrence of the Commission is necessary for regularising the services of the petitioner. 3. Comprehensive representations Exts.P10 and P11 have been submitted by the petitioner. Though they are addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Industries, as evidenced by Ext.P12, Exts.P10 and P11 have been W.P.(C).NO.5285/08 :: 4 :: forwarded to the concerned department. Though Ext.P13 indicates that the commission has not concurred with the proposal for regularising the services of the petitioner, the company has apparently taken up the matter again with the Government, as evidenced by Ext.P14. In other words, the issue of regularisation of the services of the petitioner is pending with the Government. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Mohammed Nias and learned Government Pleader. I have perused the averments in the writ petition also. 5. Apparently, the petitioner commenced her services as early as 1992 and her claim for regularisation of her services is eligible to be considered, inter alia, for the reason that the services of 145 employees were regularised. The Government is entitled to take a decision in this regard and if the Government decides to regularise the services of a person like the petitioner who originally commenced service, albeit on contract basis, on 19.4.1991, the absence of concurrence by the Public Service Commission by itself would not invalidate the W.P.(C).NO.5285/08 :: 5 :: decision. I do not express any final opinion inasmuch as the Government has to take a decision. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and take an appropriate decision on Exts.P10 and P11, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner's services shall not disturbed till a decision is taken by the Government. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge