IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36025 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.V.SUJA, T.C.48/497, AMBADI, KONCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SMT.SHIRMILA. C.S. SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.NANDAKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.36025/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.24362/2003 DATED 12/07/2006. P2 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 22/01/2007. P3 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.23909/L3/06/H.EDN. DATED 17/02/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF GOVT.LETTER NO.15351/02/H.EDN. DATED 21/11/2002. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.36025 of 2008 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. During 1993, she was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the Office of the Director of Technical Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram for provisional appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR. However on 03/03/1993, she was appointed as a temporary clerk vide proceedings No.TC/408/93 for a period of 60 days on daily wages of Rs.33/-. Accordingly, the petitioner joined duty on 17/03/1993 and worked for 34 days. 2. In the meanwhile, by an amendment, Rule 9(e) introduced to the KS & SSR, and physically handicapped persons who have worked on any day between 01/01/1993 - 31/07/1994 under the Government were made eligible for regularisation in service. The petitioner claimed the benefit of regularisation. That was rejected by order dated 21/11/2002 on the ground that the amendment will not apply to a casual or contract appointee like her. WP(C) No.36025/2008 -2- That order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.24362/2003. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 12/07/2006. In paragraph 2 of the judgment, it was held as follows:- “The petitioner has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, for provisional appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR. But the appointing authority has chosen to appoint her on daily wage basis. But the said action of the appointing authority cannot affect the rights of the petitioner, flowing from Ext.P4 amendment to the Rules. Further the point raised by the petitioner, is squarely covered by the judgment in Binu v. State of Kerala (2003 (3) KLT 207). In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is quashed.” 3. On the aforesaid basis, the order was quashed and the matter was ordered to be reconsidered. Accordingly, the case was reconsidered and Ext.P3 order dated 17/02/2007 has been issued by the 1 st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner once again holding that casual or contract appointees are not eligible for the benefit, and that only those appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR are eligible for the benefit of regularisation. It is this order, which is under challenge. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have reiterated their plea that the benefit of the Government Order provided for WP(C) No.36025/2008 -3- regularisation is eligible only to those appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS&SSR and not to persons like the petitioner who were appointed on casual or contract basis. 5. As already seen, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner's application for regularisation was rejected and the petitioner had approached this Court and in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) No. 24362/2003 this Court has found that the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS & SSR, and that the appointing authority though had chosen to appoint the petitioner on daily wage basis, the said action of the appointing authority cannot deprive the petitioner from her eligibility to be regularised in terms of the Government Order. This judgment has become final, and the judgment is fully binding on the Government. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that she is not a Rule 9(a)(i) appointee. Since in Ext.P3 order her claim has been rejected only on the ground that she is not a Rule 9(a)(i) appointee, having regard to the findings in Ext.P1 judgment, I cannot uphold Ext.P3 order. 6. The learned Government Pleader argued that the view expressed in Ext.P1 judgment is against the Division Bench WP(C) No.36025/2008 -4- judgments in State of Kerala v. Sasikala (2000(1) KLT Short Note 65), Sasikumar v. Secretary to Government(2000(3) KLT 120) and a judgment of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) NO.16257/2008. It may be true that in the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the benefit of the Government Order is available only to Rule 9(a)(i) appointees and not to contract or casual appointees like the petitioner. But, then, the aforesaid judgments, to which the petitioner is not a party, cannot have the effect of disturbing the binding nature of the findings in Ext.P1 judgment rendered by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, to which the respondents are also parties. In view of the above, Ext.P3 order is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to regularise the service of the petitioner extending the benefit of regularisation as ordered to physically handicapped persons. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg