IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34569 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.V.ABOOBACKER, PONMANAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DRIVER, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY) BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNANI. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN SRI.MANU VILSON, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34569 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. Petitioner claims to be a driver working on CLR basis in the Ponanni Municipality since November, 2000. By Ext.P2, he requested for regularization of his services. That was rejected by Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent. It is challenging this order the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 order shows that according to the 2nd respondent, having considered the claim of the petitioner in the light of the directions of this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.476/09 and in the light of the report submitted by the Secretary of the Municipality, there was no provision enabling regularization of daily waged employees like the petitioner. Petitioner submits that this conclusion in Ext.P4 is incorrect and he refers to Exts.P5, P6 and P7. 3. Ext.P5 order directs the regularization of contingent employees. Petitioner is not a contingent employee to claim parity in treatment. Even in the writ petition, there is no such WPC 34569 /09 :2 : pleading. Ext.P6 is an order in relation to the State Poverty Eradication Mission and this order discloses that the employees mentioned therein were allowed to continue on an appropriate scale of pay and there is no order to regularize their services. However, in Ext.P7, regularization of daily waged employees working in District Rural Development Agencies has been ordered. However, in so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the appointing authority is the 2nd respondent and the post of Driver is to be filled up through the PSC, unlike in the case of DRDA in relation to which Ext.P7 order has been issued. Therefore the three orders relied on by the petitioner stands on a different footing and the petitioner cannot seek parity in treatment. Therefore, I do not find anything illegal in Ext.P4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp