IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19602 of 2003(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.L.BANUMATHY, PARKKAL HOUSE, KALOOR P.O., KALOORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST., FORMERLY L.D.TYPIST, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LMS BLG. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.5832/2003 IN IA. NO.10606/2009 IN WPC. 19602/2003 DISMISSED 0/08/2010 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S.14014/8/81-IRD-1 DTD. 30.5.1981 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. P2:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.50/84/DD DTD. 18.9.1984. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.28011/26/85-IRD. III/VOL. II DTD. 22.7.88 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D.O.NO.R.20013/6/95 IRD. 1 DTD. 7.12.95 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22.1.97 IN OP. 2O212/96 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P6:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.31/98/RDD DTD. 29.9.98. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 7.3.2000 IN OP. 25818/99 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P8:- COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.356/2000/LSGD DTD. 23.12.2000. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.19602 OF 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile Small Farmers' Development Agency under the Central Government as a provisional employee on 23.10.1974, having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. From then on, the petitioner has been working as an L.D. Typist. Subsequently, the Small Farmers' Development Authority was taken over by the State Government and re-designated as District Rural Development Agency (DRDA). But the Government did not frame service rules for the employees working in the DRDA and the petitioner continued to work as provisional employees. Ultimately, by Ext.P6 Government Order, the Government decided to regularise 16 provisional employees in which the petitioner was also included. Still, the employees were not given the service benefits in respect of their regularised service. Therefore, some of the persons included in Ext.P6 filed O.P.No.25818/1999, in which this W.P.(c)No.19602/2003 2 Court directed consideration of their claims. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P8 order dated 23.12.2000 has been passed by the Government, in which the petitioner and others were given regularisation in service with effect from the date of joining duty on appointment through the Employment Exchange but all service benefits were restricted to be paid from 29.9.1998. The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of Ext.P5, whereby service benefits were restricted to be paid only from 29.9.1998. According to the petitioner, having regularised the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of joining duty, it is arbitrary and discriminatory to restrict the service benefits from 29.9.1998 onwards. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 taking the stand that the petitioner has to take her benefits in Ext.P8 as a whole and cannot choose one benefit and discard the other. However, the petitioner points out that in respect of a similarly placed employee of another DRDA, the Government has passed Ext.P9 order pursuant to directions in W.P.(C)No.25307/2004. The petitioner would contend that the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits as given to the W.P.(c)No.19602/2003 3 person covered by Ext.P9 Government Order. Respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit would contend that the same benefits cannot be given to the petitioner since that benefit was given only pursuant to directions of this Court. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Whether it is pursuant to directions of this Court or not similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently. If one employee is given a benefit, similarly placed employee has to be given the very same benefits. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the first respondent should re-consider the matter in the light of Ext.P9 order. 4. Accordingly, if the petitioner is a similarly placed employee like the person covered by Ext.P9 order, the same benefits shall be extended to the petitioner also. Orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.19602/2003 4 W.P.(c)No.19602/2003 5