IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1362 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7905/2008 Dated 19/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- MUKUNDHAN.T.P., OPERATOR (RETD.), KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307, RESIDING AT THEKKE MADOM, NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY PUMPING DIVISION, CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A. No. 1362 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. On being sponsored by Employment Exchange, the appellant was appointed as CLR operator on 25.3.1981 in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department. Later, when the Kerala Water Authority was formed, his service stood transferred to the said authority. As a part of policy of the Government, persons like the appellant were regularised in service. This was done on the strength of Annexure I order dated 8.10.1985. Regularisation was ordered only prospectively, with effect from the date of Annexure I i.e., 8.10.1985. Persons dissatisfied with the said date, approached this Court by filing O.P. No.2344 of 1987. The said original petition was allowed by Ext.P4 judgment dated 25.9.1991 directing regularisation of the persons who approached this Court with retrospective effect from their initial engagement in 1981. In the meantime, by Ext.P3 order dated 3.7.1991, the appellant was regularised in service with effect from 8.10.1985. Later, on 29.12.1997 he filed Ext.P6 representation claiming regularisation with effect from 25.3.1981. In the meantime, the W.A.No. 1362/09 2 appellant was already appointed to the post of Operator in the Water Authority on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission on 29.4.1988. The petitioner's representation Ext.P6 was considered by the Kerala Water Authority and rejected by Ext.P8. Challenging Exts.P3 and P8 the writ petition was filed. He also challenged Ext.P9 order dated 17.11.2006 as per which the Kerala Water Authority permitted reckoning of CLR/SLR service of the persons named therein for sanctioning higher grade. Ext.P9 was attacked by the appellant for the reason that he was not included in it. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides disposed of the writ petition, upholding the claim of the appellant partially. It was ordered to grant them regularisation with effect from 1.4.1984 instead of 25.3.1981. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the learned Single Judge to order to grant him regularisation from 25.3.1981, this writ appeal is filed. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge declined to grant relief to him on the ground that there was no material to show that he was appointed through Employment Exchange. The learned counsel took us through Ext.P3 wherein it is specifically admitted by the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority that the appellant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In view of the W.A.No. 1362/09 3 said position, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing the writ appeal. 5. We notice that the appellant has been granted regularisation with effect from 8.10.1985 by Ext.P3 order dated 3.7.1991. His first representation against the same was filed after the lapse of more than six years i.e., on 29.12.1997 as per Ext.P6. So he had no right to challenge Ext.P3, as the right, if any, for the same was lost by delay, laches and acquiescence. So we find no merit in the claim of the appellant to get further retrospective regularisation, than what was granted by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, (JUDGE ) P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps W.A.No. 1362/09 4