IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 9655 of 2002(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. R.KRISHNAN, CHEVAKULAM HOUSE,AYALUR, PALAKKAD. (DIED) * 2. V.RAJAGOPALAN,KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VITHANASSERY,NENMARA,PALAKKAD. 3. P.CHIDAMBARAN,KAIPENCHERRY,AYALUR, PALAKKAD. 4. P.KRISHNANKUTTY,SOWMYA NIVAS, PALAMTHONI,N.S.S.COLLEGE P.O., NENMARA,PALAKKAD. 5. K.P.SUDARSANA KUMAR,CHONAT HOUSE, PALLASSANA, PALAKKAD. 6. K.RAVINDRAN, KOOTHUMBADAM HOUSE, VELLANGY,NENMARA,PALAKKAD. 7. G.HARIDASAN,PUTHAN HOUSE, KALARI ROAD, VELLANGY, NENMARA,PALAKKAD. 8. GOPI G., GOPI SADAN,AYANAPADAM,NENMARA, PALAKKAD. *ADDL.P9. SUSEELA, W/O.LATE R.KRISHNAN, CHEVAKULAM HOUSE, AYALOOR, PALAKKAD. ADDL.P10. SINDHU K. D/O.R.KRISHNAN, CHEVAKULAM HOUSE, AYALOOR, PALAKKAD. ADDL.P11. SUMESH K., S/O.R.KRISHNAN, CHEVAKULAM HOUSE, AYALOOR, PALAKKAD. (ADDL.P9 TO P11 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED FIRST PETITIOENR VIDE ORDER DT 4/1/08 IN IA NO.291/08.) BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON OP NO.9655/2002 -2- RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASST.ENGINEER,P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,NENMARA,PALAKKAD P.O. ADDL.R4. MR.KANDAMKUTTY, CONTRACTOR, NENMARA, PALAMTHONI, PALAKKAD (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER IN IA NO.4187 OF 2006 DT 20.3.06) ADDL.R5. MR.UNNIKRISHNAN, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KWA, ALATHUR (ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER IN IA NO.15269/06 DT. 28/11/06) ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR, SC, KWA SRI.M.V.MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY, SC, KWA FOR R1TO3 SRI.C.RASHEED, SC, KWA FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.S.M.PREM FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.K.P.SANTHI FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.C.RASHEED, SC, KWA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.9655/02 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS (ORDER) NO.E.201/83/II DT 16.8.94 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.201/83/II DT 11.6.96 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 15.6.01 FROM THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P4: COPY OF the BILL SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR DISBURSEMENT OFBONUS FOR THE YEAR 2001-02. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 20.7.01 FROM THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 4.9.01 FROM THE -DO- EXT.P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 1.10.2001 IN OP NO.27542 OF 2001 D OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8: COPY OF REPLY DT 16.10.2001 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONES. EXT.P9: COPY OF PETITION DT 5.11.2001 FROM THE PETITIOENR TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3. EXT.P10: COPY OF PETITION DT 3.2.2002 FROM -DO- -DO- EXT.P11: COPY OF PAY REVISION ARREAR BILL IN RESPECT OF MR.ANANDAN SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.KWA/HO/14600/89 DT 30.8.90 FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KWA, TRIVANDRUM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 9655 OF 2002 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Ex-service men, who were engaged by the Kerala Water Authority as Pump Operators. In this original petition, they claim that though the daily wages payable to them was revised from Rs.70 to Rs.112 w.e.f. 1/7/99, they were paid only the pre-revised wages till 1/10/99. Therefore, according to them, for the period from 1/7/99 to 1/10/99, the differential amount of Rs.42/- per day is due to each of the petitioners and thus a total amount of Rs.28,182/- is due towards arrears. They also say that they are eligible to get bonus and festival allowance, which according to them has been paid to similarly situated employees. They have mentioned the name of one Sri.K.Anandhan, a Pump Operator, to whom such payment has been made. 2. Yet another grievance is that they are not paid salary from 1/12/2000 to July 2001 eventhough they had worked during the said period. It is stated that the claims were not allowed inspite of submitting several representations. Finally, they OP No.9655/02 :2 : approached this Court and filed OP No.27542/2001, which was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing consideration of the representations. The matter was considered and by Ext.P8, the claim was rejected. They continued to make representations and finally this original petition is again filed praying for directing to quash Ext.P8 and to direct the Kerala Water Authority to disburse the arrears of pay revision and bonus to the petitioners as claimed by them and paid to similarly situated employees. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Water Authority. It is stated that the petitioners being Ex-service men were engaged as HR hands only for 179 days. According to the Water Authority, the petitioners have been paid the wages as were admissible to them and receipts have been obtained. 4. In so far as the claim for payment of bonus is concerned, it is stated that such payments were made to those HR hands, who were able to obtain interim orders from the Supreme court allowing them to continue in service. It is stated that the petitioners' case stand on a different footing and therefore, they cannot claim payment on that basis. Respondents has denied that any amount is due to the petitioners as arrears of OP No.9655/02 :3 : wages. 5. In so far as payment made to Sri.Anandan is concerned, in para 11 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that his claim for regularisation following the Apex Court order was pending consideration and it was therefore that payment was made to him. 6. There is no reply affidavit filed. A reading of the pleadings in the original petition and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents show that the claim raised are totally disputed by the respondents. Such being the case, this Court will not be in a position to render a finding of fact based only on the interested affidavits filed by both sides. Therefore, on the materials produced, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioners. Original petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp