IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 3622 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.SATHYADAS, KUNNIL VEEDU, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ANTONY MUKATH FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the disability certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P1(a). True copy of the readable copy of Ext.P12 Ext.P2. True copy of the registration certificate No.01/L/2513 issued in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P3. True copy of the order No.12225/97 dated 4.5.1999 of the 3rd respondent. Ext.P4. True copy of the order No.A2.4112/99 dated 15.5.99 of the 4th respondent. Ext.P5. True copy of the certificate No.A2.4112/99 dated 10.11.1999 of the 4th respondent. Ext.P6. True copy of the petition dated 5.11.1999 filed by petitioner before the 4th respondent Ext.P7. True copy of the G.O.(P) No.43/2007/SWD dated 9.8.2007. // true copy // P.S to judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3622 OF 2009(F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is a physically handicapped person having 40% orthopedic disability. It is stated that, by Ext.P3 order dated 4.5.1999, he was appointed on a provisional basis and was discharged from duty on 7.11.1999 on completion of 179 days. He claimed the benefit of re-engagement based on Ext.P7 Government Order. However, orders were not passed. Therefore he approached this court by filing WP(c).No.10275/08 Along with a batch of writ petitions, WP(c).No.10275/08 was also disposed of by Ext.P12. The relevant portion of Ext.P12 judgment in so far as WP(c).No.10275/08 is concerned reads as under. “The petitioner who was a physically handicapped person with 40% Orthopedic Physical disability, is aggrieved by the fact that, though he was engaged on a provisional basis as a Village man between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999 as evidenced by Exts.P3 to P5, he is yet to be re-engaged. Ext.P8 comprehensive representation is pending before the Government. In view of the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General, I have no doubt in my mind that the Government will consider the case of the petitioner and issue orders of re- engaging him in service. To enable the WPC.No.3622 /09 :2 : Government to do so, the petitioner is directed to submit a comprehensive representation before the Government within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, in which case the Government will pass suitable orders within three months thereafter.” 2. Accordingly petitioner filed a representation which was rejected by Ext.P13 order mainly on the ground that initial engagement of the petitioner on provisional basis was not on the basis of any certificate that he was a physically handicapped person. It is challenging Ext.P13 and seeking his inclusion in Ext.P9 list of physically handicapped persons that the writ petition is filed. 3. In my view the petitioner is entitled to succeed primarily on account of the findings in the judgment in WP(c).No.10275/08. In that judgment, after referring to the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General, this court held that the respondent will issue orders re-engaging the petitioner in service. That judgment has become final and no appeal is filed. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be re-engaged as a physically handicapped. This necessarily mens that his name ought to have been included in Ext.P9 list. WPC.No.3622 /09 :3 : Therefore the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P13 and directing that the name of the petitioner be included in Ext.P9 list of physically handicapped persons. This the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/