IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 18507 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A. BASHEER, ABS COTTAGE, KANIYAMPARAMBIL, LAJNATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.J. JOSE ADIYODI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMG W.P (C) No.18507/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS No.G1/5185/2003 DATED 27-05-2003. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-10-2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP No.8654/2003. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.6219/A3/03/LSGD DATED 16-03-2004 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-06-2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P (C) No.22201/2007. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08-08-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER No.50013/EU3/09/LSGD DATED 11-05-2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (Rt) No.1743/2010/LSGD DATED 26-05-2010. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O (P) No.3000/98/Fin DATED 25-11-1998. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AMG K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18507 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a provisional employee who had worked as a Peon in Thiruvalla Municipality from 18-06-1980 to 31-10- 2003. On 31-10-2003 the petitioner retired from service on attaining superannuation at the age of 55 years. Though he had submitted a request for regularisation of his service and for payment of pensionary benefits, he was informed a provisional employee was not entitled to any pensionary benefits. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation to the 1st respondent detailing his grievances. However, the same has been rejected by Ext.P6 for the only reason that he had retired from service as a provisional employee. Since provisional employees are not entitled to any pensionary benefits, his representation has been rejected. 2. The counsel for the petitioner points out that as per Ext.P4 judgment it has been held by the Court that a similarly situated employee was entitled to regularisation in service but for the limited purpose of retirement benefits. The counsel seeks W.P.(C) No.18507/2010 -2- the very same relief for the petitioner also. Though specific reference has been made to the case of the employee whose claim was considered as per Ext.P5, Exhibit P6 neither refers to nor considers the said contention. Therefore, it is contended Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside and the representation of the petitioner is liable to the considered afresh. 3. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. In Ext. P4 judgment the person who claimed a similar benefit in the said case was also a provisional employee like the petitioner who had similarly retired from service without her service being regularised. This court after considering the various contentions raised and referring to the precedents on the point held that the rejection of her claim on the basis that the service of the said employee was not regularised, was unsustainable. 4. In the present case the petitioner was recruited through employment exchange admittedly on 18-06-1980. Thereafter, he had continued in service continuously till the date of his superannuation on 31-10-2003. Therefore, the petitioner had been in service for 23 years. The petitioner had sought regularisation of his service. However he could not succeed. The present claim of the petitioner is for regularisation for the W.P.(C) No.18507/2010 -3- limited purpose of his pensionary benefits. In the light of the dictum in Ext.P4 judgment the case of the petitioner certainly requires re-consideration by the 1st respondent. Especially so, in view of the fact that the above contention that was raised in Ext.P5 has not been adverted to or considered in Ext.P4. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and the dictum laid down by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment and to pass appropriate orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard before a final decision is taken in Ext.P5. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge