IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15121 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PRADEEP, AGED 42,S/O. SREEDHARAN, HOUSE NO.23/732 KAKKUNGARA PARAMBU, KADEBHAGAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6, (CLR WORKER CIRCLENO.9,KOCHI RORPORATION) 2. P.V.JAMES, AGED 41, S/O. VARGHESE, HOUSE NO.20/919, PATTATHIPARAMBU, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6 ( CLR WORKER,CIRCLE NO.9,KOCHI CORPORATION) BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 3. KANJANAVALLY.V.N. VENMANEZHATH, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 6, (SWEEPER, CIRCLE NO.6, KOCHI CORPORATION) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR ADV. SRI. S.RAMESH BABU, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15121 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is that they commenced service as CLRs on 15.2.1986 and 12.5.1987 respectively. According to them, the third respondent commenced service only in June 1993 and that over looking the superior claims of the petitioners, the third respondent was regularised as Sweeper by Ext.P3 order. It is challenging the regularisation of the third respondent, ignoring the superior claims of the petitioners, the writ petition is filed. 2. However, according to Corporation, the seniority counted with respect to the employees who have break in service for more than one year is to be counted only from the date of rejoining. According to them, the seniority of the first petitioner starts from 11.9.2002 and the second petitioner from 3.4.2002. It is therefore stated that the third respondent is senior to both of them. 3. It is seen that assigning seniority in the manner as stated in the counter affidavit, respondents have published Ext.P4 draft seniority list to which Exts.P5 and P5(a) objections have been filed by the petitioners where they contended that they are entitled to WPC No.15121/2010 2 seniority from the date of their initial commencement of service. Therefore what is primarily required is that seniority, as shown in Ext.P4 to which objections have been filed, should be settled by the respondents. Only thereafter and that too, if their claims are accepted, can the petitioners contend that they are seniors to the third respondent. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to settle the provisional seniority list as published by Ext.P4 considering Ext.P5 and P5(a) and other objections filed against Ext.P4. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in case the claim of the petitioners is allowed, it will be open to the petitioners to seek regularisation, in which event the same shall be considered by the second respondent and orders thereon will be passed in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.15121/2010 3 WPC No.15121/2010 4