IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6502 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A. SUBAIDA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.BASHEER KATTANGANESHAKU PARAMBU, NAMBIAPURAM ROAD PALLURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY - KOCHI LABORATORY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY - KOCHI MANOHAR BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. 3. THE DIRECTOR (I & QC) EXPORT INSPECTION COUNSEL OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF COMMERECE & INDUSTRY,GOVT.OF INDIA) 3RD FLOOR NDYMCA CULTURAL CENTRE BUILDING 1JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-1. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR R1 & R2 SRI.JOHN VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.6502 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 1st April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner who was working as a Sweeper in the Laboratory under the 1st respondent since 26.7.1988 on a casual basis sought for regularisation of services. Apparently, an earlier request made by her under Exhibit P1 was met with Exhibit P2 stating that her case will be considered along with others as and when vacancy arises in future. After 19 years of service, she was not regularised but was threatened with termination of service. She had approached this Court in W.P. (c) No.1657 of 2008 which was disposed of under Exhibit P7 judgment. Operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: i) Petitioner may make a fresh representation indicating her claim before the 1st respondent, within four weeks from today. Thereupon, the 1st respondent shall forward the same along with his remarks to the 2nd respondent, within one month thereafter. If there is a proposal on the part of the 1st respondent not to recommend the case of the petitioner then the petitioner shall be heard by the 1st respondent before such recommendation is made. Needful shall be done by the 1st respondent, within four weeks from W.P ( C) No.6502 of 2008 2 the date of receipt of the copy of a representation . ii) On receipt of the copy of a representation so submitted by the petitioner along with the recommendations of the 1st respondent , the 2nd respondent shall take a decision on the same, within two months thereafter, keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment in State of Karanataka Vs. Ms. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] 2. Exhibit P8 is a representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that representation is now pending before the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that in the meanwhile her services have been dispensed with from 15.2.2008. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is contended that petitioner had been engaged on a casual basis from time to time. But she may not be entitled to regularisation merely on the strength of the same, petitioner's plea is being looked into by the 2nd respondent. It shall be done in terms of the direction issued in Exhibit P7 judgment. Cleaning work as such has been entrusted to a private agency in the different offices under the 2nd respondent. Having heard the counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the substantial relief sought for by the petitioner is to be W.P ( C) No.6502 of 2008 3 worked out in terms of Exhibit P7 judgment. But it is made clear that disengagement of the petitioner from 15.2.2008 shall be ignored by the 2nd respondent in dealing with Exhibit P8 representation as such. In other words, if it is found that petitioner is entitled to be regularised taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1] which is specifically referred to in Exhibit P7 judgment, then the mere fact that the petitioner's service has been dispensed with subsequent to Exhibit P7 judgment shall not be taken as a reason to decline regularisation as such. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.6502 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No.6502 of 2008 5 25th May, 2007 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.