IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19284 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHAMANI.M.K,MOHANA MANDIRAM, PALAKKUZHA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,DIRECATORATE OF AGRICULTURE,VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 4. FARM SUPERINTENDENT,DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL FARM,NERIAMANGALAM,IDUKKI-686 693. GP SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).19284/2010 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 is an order dated 29.4.1999 appointing the petitioner as a Casual Farm Worker under the 4th respondent. 2. While continuing so, Ext.P3 order was issued on 24.11.1999. By this Government Order casual Farm workers were directed to be regularized based on seniority. Since the issuance of Ext.P3 petitioner had filed two writ petitions before this Court and one writ appeal in which Ext.P4 judgment was passed. In none of the judgments petitioner's claim for regularization based on Ext.P3 was accepted by this Court and in Ext.P4 judgment, the Division Bench only clarified that the regularization shall be based on the seniority which principle is consistent with Ext.P3 Government Order referred to above. 3. Subsequently on 8.6.2009, Ext.P5 was issued by the Government clarifying Ext.P3 that as an one time measure, casual W.P.(C).19284/10 2 employees can also be regularized. Although petitioner would have been eligible for the benefit of regularization as per Ext.P5, by the time Ext.P5 was issued, petitioner had attained 55 years, the age fixed for superannuation. On this basis, her service was not regularized. It is in these circumstances, she made Ext.P6 representation seeking regularization on the basis of Exts.P3 and P5. Orders were not passed and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 4. As already seen, by Ext.P3 Government Order, way back in 1999, Government had directed regularization based on seniority. But petitioner's service was not regularized. In none of the judgments secured by the petitioner, did this Court uphold the petitioner's claim for regularization based on Ext.P3. Therefore, at this distance of time, petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Ext.P3. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, although, regularization has been ordered such regularization can only be of prospective nature and by the time Ext.P5 was issued, petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, petitioner can neither claim the benefit of Ext.P5 nor require the respondents to consider W.P.(C).19284/10 3 Ext.P6 representation made by her for regularization. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs