IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17754 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.K. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, LOWER DIVISION CLERK (H.G), OFFICE OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KASARAGOD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 17754 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a physically handicapped person having disability in excess of 60%. He was appointed as L. D. Clerk in the Agricultural Department during the period from 08.06.1983 to 16.9.1989 on a provisional basis. Government initially ordered that the services of physically handicapped provisional employees who have got one year service as on 5.1.1984 should not be terminated. Subsequently, orders were issued regularizing him in such service. Though initially petitioner who had only six months and 28 days service as on 5.1.1984, was relieved from service on 16.9.1989, he was later regularized in service. Petitioner is now in regular service. The grievance of the petitioner is in relation to a different aspect. Petitioner submits that persons who were recruited along with him and did not have one year service as on 05.01.1984 were regularized W.P ( C) No. 17754 of 2008 2 taking into account their earlier provisional service. He prays that similar treatment must be given to him. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that petitioner was in provisional service prior to 1.10.1994. He had been recruited to regular service only after 1.10.1994. He had joined duty on 24.2.1995. He therefore cannot claim regularization in service from the date of commencement of his provisional service. The dictum laid down by the Full Bench in State of Kerala Vs. Ponnamma [2005 (4) KLT 987] stands in the way of the petitioner's claim being accepted. 3. Petitioner’s claim for regularisation of his provisional service rendered prior to 1.10.1994 for the purpose of regularization with reference to the date of commencement of provisional service is against the dictum laid down in Ponnamma’s case. In circumstances where petitioner had rendered regular service only after 1.10.1994, the stand taken by the respondents therefore cannot be faulted. W.P ( C) No. 17754 of 2008 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan submits that notwithstanding the dictum laid down in Ponnamma’s case, petitioner has been discriminated against. It is pointed out that persons similarly situated, who were in provisional service earlier and who had not completed one year service as on 5.1.1984, namely, Radha, Bhamini and Santha were regularized with effect from the date of commencement of their provisional service. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding the dictum laid down in Ponnamma’s case, he is entitled to similar treatment. Essentially, he contends that the aforementioned Radhamony, Radha, Bhamini and Santha have been granted increments by counting their provisional service. I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the petitioner. If any incumbent had been granted increments in relation to their provisional service rendered prior to 1.10.1994 though regular service had commenced only subsequent to 1.10.1994, then the said action is liable to be treated as illegal in the light of the Full Bench decision. W.P ( C) No. 17754 of 2008 4 4. If that be so, even if I find that such illegal benefit has been given to some other persons, I cannot direct that an illegality be perpetuated. The law laid down by this Court following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Devadasan [2008 (1) KLT SN 17] is clear on this aspect. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 17754 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No. 17754 of 2008 6