IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 23084 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.T.POULOSE, AGED 57, S/O.THARIAN, PALEKODATH HOUSE, MANGATTUKARA, P.O.PULIYANAM, ANKAMALY (RETD. WORKER GRADE II, ELECTRICAL WING(I SECTION, KALADY) BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL WING (IRRIGATION), SUB DIVISION, ALUVA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23084/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDNET GO(P) 6/90/PW &T DT 20.1.90 EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 12.10.01 IN OP 18070/01 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF the ORDER NO.C1-18379/01 DT 28.6.02. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF the ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A2-3198/99 DT 12.8.02. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY FIXATION ORDER OF 4TH RESPONDENT BEARINGNO.ELE.278/2002 DT 25.7.08. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO 17/99/IrD DT 18.3.99. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.22.5.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23084 OF 2009 (E) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner commenced service as Pump Operator under the Lift Irrigation Scheme implemented by Farmers' Welfare Society, which was subsequently taken over by the Angamaly Municipality. It is stated that from the Municipality, the Government took over the scheme from 17/9/81. 2. While continuing as such, w.e.f. 6/1/88, along with similarly situated employees, petitioner was also absorbed as a CLR worker into the service of Public Works (Minor Irrigation) Department. Subsequently, Ext.P1 order was issued by the Government on 20/1/1990 regularizing the service of CLR workers who were in service on or before 19/5/1983 and have completed 500 days of service as on 01/04/1987. 3. The benefit of Ext.P1 was not extended to the petitioner and therefore he approached this Court by filing OP NO.2765/98. That original petition was disposed of by judgment dated 10/2/98 directing consideration of his claim for the benefit of Ext.P1. However, Government rejected his claim by order WPC 23084/09 :2 : dated 27/3/2001, which again was called in question before this Court in OP NO.18070/01. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment quashing order dated 27/3/2001 and directing reconsideration of the matter. 4. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was reconsidered and Ext.P3 order was issued on 28/6/2002 extending the benefit of regularization as ordered in Ext.P1 to the petitioner. However, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 12/8/02 limiting monetary benefits as a consequence of Ext.P3 only w.e.f. 28/6/2002, the date on which Ext.P3 order was issued. Ext.P5 is the consequential order issued by the 4th respondent fixing the pay of the petitioner as ordered in Exts.P3 and P4 and regularizing him in service w.e.f. 1/10/85. In this writ petition filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5 to the extent it limits the monetary benefits as above, petitioner claims that he should get monetary benefit w.e.f. 1/10/85 and that on that basis, his pay and pension will have to be reworked and paid. 5. Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that in Ext.P5, he has been given second time bound higher grade w.e.f. 2003 and that on that basis, he having rendered 23 years of WPC 23084/09 :3 : service, should have been extended the benefit of the third time bound higher grade in 2008. 6. In so far as the claim of the petitioner against the limiting of monetary benefits w.e.f. 28/6/2002 is concerned, a reading of Ext.P4 order passed by the 4th respondent show that the said order limiting monetary benefits was passed for want of clarification from the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P5 also, it is stated that the monetary benefits have been limited to 28/6/2002 till a clarification is obtained from the Chief Engineer. 7. As already stated, it was based on Ext.P1 that the petitioner claimed regularization, which ultimately was conceded by Ext.P3. Consequent on the issuance of Ext.P1, several employees similar to that of the petitioner would have been regularized and claim for monetary benefits by similar employees would have been dealt with by the Chief Engineer. In such a situation, there is no reason why the Chief Engineer should delay consideration of the claim of the petitioner and the issuance of clarification, which is the only impediment stated in Exts.P4 and P5. 8. In view of the above, I feel it is only appropriate that WPC 23084/09 :4 : the Chief Engineer should issue necessary clarification, considering the case of the petitioner on a par with similar other regularized employees, and on its receipt, respondents 3 and 4 should issue necessary orders regulating the monetary benefits due to the petitioner. 9. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for the third time bound higher grade is concerned, the petitioner could have claimed it on completion of 23 years of service. Although he could complete 23 years of service only on 1/10/2008 and that by then the petitioner had retired, petitioner submits that by virtue of Ext.P6, each 240 days of service rendered by him is to be reckoned as one year's service, and on that basis, his eligibility should be worked out. It is stated that adopting this as the basis, benefits have been extended to other similarly situated employees. 10. Now that I have already directed the 2nd respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner for the monetary benefits w.e.f. 1/10/85, I also direct that the 2nd respondent shall examine whether the petitioner is entitled to third time bound higher grade reckoning his eligibility on the basis of Ext.P6 referred to above. WPC 23084/09 :5 : 11. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent, who shall consider the aforesaid two claims of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereof. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that monetary benefits as are found to be admissible shall also be released without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp