IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 16766 of 2007(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.BABURAJ, S/O. KANAKKAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS MAHOUT, AGUSTIAVANAM BIOLOGICAL PARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MS.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERIYAR EAST DIVISION, PERIYAR WILD LIFE PRESERVATION CENTRE, THEKKADY. 4. WILD LIFE WARDEN, AUGUSTIAVANAM BIOLOGICAL PARK, KOTTOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. V. TEKCHNAD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.16766/2007 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR FOREST AND WILD LIFE, DTD. 6.1.2003. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR FOREST AND WILD LIFE DTD.22.2.2005. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.10.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERIYAR EAST DIVISION TO CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 19.12.2005. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE DEEPIKA DAILY DTD. 19.12.2005. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DTD. 19.1.2006. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DTD. 26.6.2006. EXT. P8 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR DTD. 8.8.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16766 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The plight of the petitioner who is continuing as a Temporary Mahout for more than two decades without being regularized, despite filing several representations and also the recommendations made by the departmental authorities, is sought to be redressed in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Mahout in the Thekkady Periyar Wild Life Preservation Centre, Periyar East Division on 05.07.1986. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and it is his case that the father of the petitioner also was serving the Department as a Temporary Mahout for about 35 years, who took his last breath due to Cancer. It was subsequent to the demise of the father that the petitioner got placement as a Temporary Mahout as aforesaid and he is continuing the legacy of his father, thus telling the tale of temporary service spanning for more than 55 years, if the history of his father is also to be taken into account. W.P.(C) No.16766/07 2 3. The petitioner has submitted several representations before the respondents claiming the benefit of regularization and finally, taking note of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator, as per Exhibit P8 letter dated 08.08.2006 brought it to the notice of the first respondent/Government that the requests made by the petitioner and another Temporary Mahout by name Shamsudeen were very much genuine and that they could be regularized after redistribution of the existing vacancies, transferring two posts from the Malayattoor Division; one each to Thekkady Periyar East Division and the other to Konni Division. It was accordingly recommended by the said authority, which is stated as pending before the first respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent, Deputy Director of Periyar East Division has filed a counter affidavit, the contents of which clearly reveal that the departmental authorities have taken earnest efforts to see that the service of the petitioner is regularized, by pursuing the matter before the Government. However, it is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that there was a W.P.(C) No.16766/07 3 vacancy of Mahout in the Thekkady Periyar East Division due to the death of one Velayudhan in 1987 and that nobody was posted against the said vacancy. 5. The 3rd respondent has specifically stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that a detailed report was submitted to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life) as per letter No.E2-255/96 dated 10.12.2004 requesting him to take a final decision on the regularization of the service of the petitioner and that a further reminder was sent in this regard as per letter No.E2-255/96 dated 09.03.2005. It has been pointed out in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has also issued necessary communications to the first respondent/Government to regularize the service of the petitioner and other eligible persons which are pending sanction from the Government. It has been added in the very same paragraph that, out of the two posts of Mahouts sanctioned, one vacancy was abolished vide G.O.(P) No.1208/01 dated 22.10.2001 since the said vacancy was left unfilled for more than one year. The reason for not regularising the service W.P.(C) No.16766/07 4 of the persons like the petitioner despite the availability of the vacancy which was left unfilled, finally leading to the inevitable consequence of abolition of the post, is not discernible from the counter affidavit filed by the concerned respondent. This only shows the callous indifference on the part of the first respondent to the requests made by the persons like the petitioner who are serving the Department as Temporary Mahouts for nearly two decades. In the concluding paragraph of the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it has been asserted that the Department has already taken a view that the petitioner's service is to be regularized. 6. It is relevant to note that the Chief Forest Conservator (Administration), as per letter No.E6/730/2005 dated 04.10.2006, has also written to the first respondent/Government recommending regularization of the service of the petitioner. Obviously, the first respondent/ Government has not considered the long pending grievance of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and has not even cared to explain the delay/lapses in regularising the service of the petitioner, W.P.(C) No.16766/07 5 particularly when, even according to the respondents as pointed out in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the selection of Mahouts was shifted from the shoulders of Public Service Commission to Employment Exchange as per G.O.(P) No.416/79/GAD MO dated 24.06.1979. 7. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the first respondent, as per letter No.7154/F1/05/Forest(i) dated 22.05.2007, had informed the petitioner that his request dated 03.08.2006 submitted before the Minister for Department of Forest and Wild Life was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said communication has not yet been served to the petitioner. A copy of the said proceedings placed for consideration of this Court shows that it does not refer to the relevant facts and circumstances, but for simply stating that regularization of the daily wage employee is not permissible under the existing provisions of law. Obviously, it does not refer to Exhibit P8 recommendation made by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest stating the genuineness of the claim put forward by the petitioner and recommending regularization W.P.(C) No.16766/07 6 after redistribution of the posts, as stated earlier. Similarly, the said communication issued by the Government also does not refer to the specific recommendation made by the Chief Forest Conservator in his letter No.E6/730/2005 dated 04.10.2006. As such, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner as per the letter dated 22.05.2007 is not correct or proper and it cannot adversely affect the rights and liberties of the petitioner in pursuing the matter. It stands declared accordingly and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent/Government, in view of the observations made herein before. In the above facts and circumstances, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the specific recommendation made by the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator as per Exhibit P8 proceedings dated 08.08.2006 and also the similar recommendation made by the Chief Forest Conservator (Administration) as per letter No.E6/730/2005 dated 04.10.2006 and pass necessary orders regarding the regularization of the service of the petitioner, in the light of the observations made herein before, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a W.P.(C) No.16766/07 7 period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with copies of the above recommendations before the first respondent so as to enable the first respondent to take further steps as directed above. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE smp W.P.(C) No.16766/07 8 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. W.P.(C) No.16766 OF 2007 J U D G M E N T 01.04.2009