IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 88 of 2008() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4448/2005 Dated 19/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------- V.RADHAKRISHNAN, NIGHT WATCHER-CUM-SWEEPER, REGIONAL STATIONARY OFFICE, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATIONARIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CONTROLLER OF STATIONARIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT STATIONARY CONTROLLER, REGIONAL STATIONARY OFFICE, SHORNUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.88 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. The petitioner wanted the benefit of the judgment in Vasanti v. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT 288). Appellant in this writ appeal was appointed to the post of Night Watcher cum Sweeper under the respondents. They were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and had undergone selection process and all of them were appointed subject to the condition that it is for a period of 179 days. All of them were appointed on a time scale. By Ext.P3 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held that it will be unfair to deny the benefit of their selection and appointment of the petitioners were strictly contained under the provisions of Rule 5 and their services cannot be terminated. Division Bench held as follows: “11. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration and in the peculiar facts of these cases, we find that it would be unfair to deny the benefit of selection W.A.88/08 2 to the petitioners/appellants.” Further it was held that “It is, however, clarified that in the case of the persons whose services had been terminated during the pendency of these cases, the respondents shall issue orders of reinstatement. Their period of absence from duty shall be treated as leave of the kind due. However, they will not be entitled to any salary for the period they had remained out of jobs. However, their service shall be deemed to be continuous.” The above judgment became final. Due to apprehend termination of their service they again approached this Court. Even though the learned Single Judge accepted the above contention, it was stated that if there is any part time contingent employee entitled for promotion, then their claim also should be considered on the basis of the decision in Vasanti v. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT 288). The petitioner's rights were confirmed in Vasanthi's case (supra) as can be seen in paragraph 12 of the judgment. It is also stated that in a number of cases, court directed to regularise the persons like petitioner as they were appointed after a selection process as per the rules. Government Pleader W.A.88/08 3 submitted that Government has not filed appeal against regularisation order (Ext.P3 judgment) and even though in some of the cases, Special Leave Petition was filed and those appeals were withdrawn and regularisation order was issued. Petitioner also is entitled to protection and the direction regarding the consideration of claim for promotion of part time contingent employee, if any, will not affect the petitioner. Therefore, no further orders are necessary. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 1st January, 2008