IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 33297 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.N.MOHANAN, KODUMPATTU VEEDU, S.N.PURAM, ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. KERALA STATE DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., KALAVOOR, ALLEPPEY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR,SC,DRUGS & PHARMACEU R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33297 of 2009 2 EXHIBITS ------------ PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------ P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. 18117/98 DATED 3.4.03 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.03 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.8.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.9.09 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33297 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been serving under the 2nd respondent from 1974 onwards. He was engaged as a casual worker for carrying on the loading and unloading work in the formulation division of the establishment. The petitioner and five other similarly situated persons claimed regularization in service as they had been working continuously for many years. They had also filed OP No.18117/1998 before this Court. After considering the matter, this Court directed the first respondent -Government to consider the matter afresh bearing in mind the fact that the petitioners expect regularization only in the formulation division and that too as and when vacancies arise. The Government was directed to take decision on the possibility of regularization of the petitioners in the formulation division of the 2nd respondent company in the next available regular W.P.(C) No.33297 of 2009 2 vacancies. Accordingly, as per Exhibit P2 proceedings, the Government have ordered as follows. In the circumstances Government are pleased to order that the matter of regularization of the above mentioned 6 persons in the next available regular vacancies in the Formulation Division of KSDP will be examined at appropriate time as and when the restructuring of the company takes place, if at all and the financial position of the company is fit enough. The petitioner has submitted Exhibit P4 representation requesting for the regularization of his service. The same is pending before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that no orders have been passed on Exhibit P4, till date. According to the counsel for the petitioner, he is to retire on 31.05.2010 on attaining superannuation and therefore it is submitted that the petitioner may be regularized at least before his retirement. Alternatively, it is also contended that since the petitioner has not been regularized in service, he is entitled to continue in service as a casual employee without being superannuated. The W.P.(C) No.33297 of 2009 3 counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the company would have regularized the services of the petitioner but for the stipulation in the Government Order prohibiting either regularization or making of new appointments. It is therefore, submitted that regularization would be possible, only with the permission of the Government. The learned Government Pleader submits that the second respondent is a relief undertaking. It is a sick unit that is being revived as per the orders of the Government. As a welfare measure, instead of sending out the employees they were being retained until the company is revived and made healthy. The restructuring of the company would be undertaken only at the said point of time and only then it would be possible to regularize the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Government had been issuing orders periodically extending the time fixed for reviving the company. At present, the time stands extended upto March 2011. In W.P.(C) No.33297 of 2009 4 view of the above, it is submitted that it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties and having perused the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I am of the view that since the company is being revived as per orders of the Government no regularization can be effected unless expressly ordered by the Government. As per Exhibit P2, the Government has ordered that the matter of regularization of the petitioner and others would be examined at the appropriate time. It is pointed out that such a stage has not been reached. However, I notice that the petitioner has approached superannuation and that if his claim for regularization is not considered expeditiously, he would retire without getting any of the benefits due to a regular employee. In the above circumstances, it is absolutely necessary that Exhibit P4 representation is considered by the 2nd respondent on the W.P.(C) No.33297 of 2009 5 merits and appropriate orders passed expeditiously. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service the 2nd respondent shall also take permission from the Government for the said purpose. However, until such a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent and permission is granted by the Government, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner, set out in Exhibit P4 sympathetically and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate before 31.05.2010 K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. rkc