IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 643 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32973/2004 Dated 19/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ----------- THANKAPPAN,NIGHT WATCHER-CUM-SWEEPER, DISTRICT STATIONARY OFFICE,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF STATIONARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CONTROLLER OF STATIONARIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT STATIONARY OFFICER, DISTRICT STATIONARY OFFICE,KOLLAD,KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.643 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT KOSHY, J. This appeal is filed from a common judgment in 8 writ petitions from one of the judgment in the very same common judgment impugned, W.A.No.88 of 2008 was filed. It was disposed of by the judgment dated 25th May 2008. In the above judgment, we have held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of judgment in Vasanti vs. State of Kerala (2006(1) KLT 288) and since petitioners were appointed as per rules their services cannot be terminated. It was further held as follows: “Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration and in the peculiar facts of these cases, we find that it would be unfair to deny the benefit of selection to the petitioners/appellants.” It was also held that : “It is, however, clarified that in the case of the persons whose services had been terminated during the pendency of these cases, the respondents shall issue orders of reinstatement. Their period of absence from duty shall be treated as leave of the kind due. However, they will not be entitled to any WA 643/2008 2 salary for the period they had remained out of jobs. However, their service shall be deemed to be continuous.” The petitioner's rights were confirmed in Vasanti's case (supra) as can be seen in paragraph 12 of the judgment. It is also stated that in a number of cases, court directed to regularise the persons like petitioner as they were appointed after a selection process as per the rules. Government Pleader submitted that Government has not filed appeal against regularisation order (Ext.P3 judgment) and even though in some of the cases, Special Leave Petitions were filed and those appeals were withdrawn and regularisation order was issued. Petitioner also is entitled to protection. The direction regarding the consideration of claim for promotion of part time contingent employee, if any, will not affect the petitioner. Therefore, no further orders are necessary. We dispose of the appeal also with the same direction. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE csl