IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 316 of 2009(K) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20894/2004 Dated 19/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) : --------------------------------------------------------- 1. V. VIJAYAKUMAR, THARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM, CLR WORKER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. 2. K. MOHANAN, THARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM, CLR WORKER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. C. DEVADASAN PILLAI, PUTHINGAL VEEDU MURUNTHAL`A' WARD, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM, CLR WORKER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) : ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION (GW) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, STADIUM BUILDING, KOLLAM-1. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BABU P.K. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------- R.P.No.316 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No.20894 OF 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 O R D E R This review petition is filed for review of judgment dated 19.02.2009 passed in the writ petition. The petitioners are producing Annexures A1 to A7 documents along with the review petition. According to them, those documents could be collected only after disposal of the writ petition. The review is sought for based on those documents. 2. Annexure A1 series are documents evidencing engagement of the petitioners as SLR workers, during the year 1983. Annexures A2 to A7 are various Government Orders through which SLR workers in the Ground Water Department are regularised. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the above documents, the denial of regularisation of the petitioners is highly discriminative. R.P.316 of 2009 in W.P.(C) 20894 of 2004 2 3. The challenge in the above writ petition was against Ext.P4 order, through which Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners was disposed of. Ext.P4 order was issued consequent to the directions of this court in O.P.No.2340/1995. Annexures A2 to A7 Government Orders were not available before the Government when they considered Ext.P2 representation. Nor any benefit was claimed by the petitioner based on those orders. So the Government have no occasion to consider the claim of the petitioners based on Annexures A2 to A7 orders, which according to the petitioners are orders issued with respect to similarly placed SLR workers. 4. In the judgment dated 19.02.2009, it is specifically observed that, “in view of the fact that the petitioners were disputing the findings in Ext.P4 with respect to the date of their first engagement and in view of their assertion that similarly situated other labourers were also regularised, it is for the petitioners to bring those aspects to the notice of R.P.316 of 2009 in W.P.(C) 20894 of 2004 3 the Government and to seek redressal of their grievance.” Under such circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to produce Annexures A2 to A7 documents before the Government and to claim the same benefit in those orders, if it is granted to similarly situated SLR workers. 5. In view of the above findings, it is not necessary to review the judgment based on Annexures A2 to A7 documents. Therefore, the review petition does not deserves merit and the same is disposed with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pac