IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 9101 of 2001(H) ---------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.R.NARAYANAN, THAZHATHIL VEEDU, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN SMT.BINDU MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIVISION FOREST OFFICER, ARYANKAVU. 3. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ARYANKAVU. 4. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KONNI. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OP.9101/2001. PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CHEQUES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF WAGES. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.3.8.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DT.30.5.85. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- O.P.No. 9101 Of 2001-H ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MAY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The Original Petition is filed by the petitioner mainly seeking for a direction to regularise his service. The second prayer is to direct the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P2 representation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as a mahout on daily wages in the Forest Department since 1.9.1994. The petitioner alleges that even though several others have been regularised, his case has not been considered. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit traversing the contentions of the petitioner. The following facts are evident from the counter affidavit. 4. The petitioner has been working in Thenmala Forest Division of Kerala Forest Department on daily wages as Mazdoor to help the regular Mahout for the work of feeding and maintenance of elephants. He was being paid as per the sanctioned estimate for feeding and maintenance of the elephant and to assist the regular mahouts to cook food, bath, feed and look after the elephants properly. The petitioner was thus engaged on daily wage basis as per the work requirement. He had not been given any appointment order, O.P.No.9101/01 -2- but engaged as casual daily wage labourer. 5. It is pointed out that the petitioner is not a member, permanent or temporary establishment of the Department and he is not on fixed pay and is being paid wages as per the estimate sanctioned for a particular work. 6. With regard to the regularisation of service, it is pointed out that six persons whose details are shown in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit would come under the category of work establishment on fixed pay scale and not on NMR basic. 7. Evidently, the petitioner was working only on daily wage basis. He has not been appointed either on temporary or on other basis by the Department. In that view of the matter, the claim for regularisation of the petitioner cannot be sustained and the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has already expired. The Writ Petition is hence dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn