IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4104 of 2006(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. PETER C.G., S/O. GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS, SLR WORKER, MINOR IRRIGATION, OFFICE OF THE ASST.ENGINEER, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOHNSON E.A., S/O. ANTONY, AGED 40 YEARS, SLR WORKER, MINOR IRRIGATION, OFFICE OF THE ASST.ENGINEER, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THEYYAMMA, SLR WORKER, MINOR IRRIGATION, OFFICE OF THE ASST.ENGINEER, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. P.C. VARGHESE, SLR WORKER, MINOR IRRIGATION, OFFICE OF THE ASST.ENGINEER, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. K.K. THANKAM, SLR WORKER, MINOR IRRIGATION, OFFICE OF THE ASST.ENGINEER, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C).NO.4104/2006-L: 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHIMONY DAM PROJECT, CHIMONI DAM P.O., THRISSUR. 4. THE ASST.ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION, KODAKARA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.4104/2006-L: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/09/1997 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE SENIORITY LIST ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 30/12/1997 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.19745/1997 DTD. 21/01/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O. DTD. 18/07/2002. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 04/07/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 01/06/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/06/2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.18833/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE GO(RT).NO.1170/2005 WRD DTD. 22/10/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 4104 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were originally CLR workers. They were working in the Chimony Dam Project under the 4th respondent. As per G.O(P) 6/90/PW & T dated 20.1.1990, the CLR workers who were in service as on 19.5.1983 and had put in more than 500 days' of service as HR/CLR workers as on 1.4.1987 are entitled to regularisation in service. According to the petitioners, as reported by the 3rd respondent by Ext.P 2 the petitioners had more than 500 days' of service as HR/CLR workers and therefore they are entitled to regularisation in service. Since the said benefit was not given to the petitioners, they filed O.P.No. 18833/2007 in which, by Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed consideration of the claim of the petitioners. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P8 order has been passed by the Government holding that since the petitioners did not have 500 days' of service as on 1.4.1987, they are entitled to only absorption as SLR workers as per the existing rules. That is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioners, in view of Ext.P2 revised seniority list prepared by the 3rd respondent, it has been proved that the petitioners have put in more than 500 days' of service as CLR/HR and therefore they are entitled to the benefit of G.O(P) 6/90. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein it is stated that Ext.P2 revised seniority list has not been W.P(C) No. 4104 of 2006 -: 2 :- prepared by the 3rd respondent based on the records available and on verification of the concerned division file, it was proved that the alleged HR service of the petitioners were counted merely based on written statements of some labour contractors and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P3 judgment, which allows HR service to be counted for the purpose of the said Government order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The specific contention of the 1st respondent is that Ext.P2 cannot be relied upon since the concerned division file does not support the statement in Ext.P2 that the petitioners have more than 500 days' of service as on 1.4.1987. The petitioners have not even filed any reply to the counter affidavit . The very fact that Ext.P2 is a revised seniority presupposes that originally a seniority list was prepared as per which the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility condition. Therefore, unless the revised seniority list is prepared on the basis of acceptable documents, the same cannot be relied upon to prove the eligibility of the petitioners. When the 1st respondent submits that the records available do not prove that the petitioners have put in more than 500 days' of service as stated in Ext.P2, I have no reason to disbelieve the counter affidavit. As such, the petitioners have not been able to prove that the W.P(C) No. 4104 of 2006 -: 3 :- petitioners have put in more than 500 days' of service as both CLR and Hand Receipt basis on proving which only the petitioners would become entitled to the benefit of G.O (P) 6/90. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/