IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 19850 of 2007(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- G.S.SREEKUMAR, 44 YEARS, REGULAR MAZDOOR, B.S.N.L. MOBILE SERVICE, PULIMODE, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOME, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN), IMPCS, BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ========================= W.P.(C)NO.19850 OF 2007 ========================= Dated this the 2nd day of January 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a regular Mazdoor in the BSNL. He is aggrieved by the fact that he was regularised only with effect from 1.10.2000. According to him, he was engaged as a temporary status mazdoor from 1979-1980 onwards. He was disengaged, but later engaged as temporary status Mazdoor from 17.11.1992 onwards. This was pursuant to Ext.P2 issued by the respondents on the basis of the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner submits that though he had continued service from 1992 onwards, for the purpose of absorption of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status) scheme 1988, from 1996 onwards, due to personal difficulties he had to stay away from duty for long periods. Subsequently after the Department of Telecom became BSNL, the Company solicited the temporary status Mazdoor for being regularized as regular Mazdoors. At the time of his regularization, pursuant to Ext.P4, his pay was fixed at minimum of the scale. According to him, 35 other persons who were re-engaged along with him and who were regularized along with him were given the benefit of pay protection with reference to the pay drawn by them in Group-D post taking into W.P.(C)19850/2007 2 account the amount drawn by them as a temporary status Mazdoor. This was not done in the case of the petitioner and hence he approached the department. His claim has been rejected under Ext.P9 which is challenged in the writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, till 1996, he had continued in service as a Mazdoor and therefore he should have been treated as a temporary status Mazdoor for the period prior to 2000 also. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that though the petitioner had served as a TSM earlier, he had not worked for 240 days or more as a temporary status Mazdoor at any point of time prior to 2000. It is further contended that the petitioner could have earned an increment as a TSM only if he had served for a minimum of 240 days in an year. Consequently when he was re- engaged in 2000, his pay could be fixed only in the minimum of the scale applicable to the post. 2. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply controverting the allegations. I do not find any reason not to accept the version given by the respondents as the period during which the petitioner had actually served as a temporary status Mazdoor prior to 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there would be documents to show that W.P.(C)19850/2007 3 the petitioner had served for more than 240 days in any particular year. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot undertake an enquiry to that effect. It is open to the petitioner to request the respondents to permit him to peruse the relevant records and bring it to the notice of the Chief General Manager, the author of Ext.P9 seeking a variation of the decision taken therein. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation indicating the records which he wants to peruse before the third respondent within a period of one month from today. If it is so done, the third respondent shall, along with his remarks, forward the records to the first respondent. If the documents which the petitioner seeks is otherwise available, he shall be permitted to peruse the same and if on a perusal of the records, it is found that the petitioner had served for more than 240 days in any particular year as a temporary status mazdoor, the same shall be brought to the notice of the first respondent who shall take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/