IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18967 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.VISWANATHAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE, CHENNEERKARA P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.I.P.DIVISION, CHENGANNOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18967/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 13.11.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 14.1.2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 20.4.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 3.10.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 28.8.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 25.5.2009. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 18.6.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18967 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is a CLR worker engaged in the PIP Division, Changgannoor. He claims regularization in service. It is stated that the Chief Engineer has already recommended his regularization and in this context, petitioner refers to Exts.P5 and P7. It is stated that, despite all this, a decision has not been taken by the 1st respondent and therefore the writ petition is field. 2. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent had reported that the petitioner had worked on HR basis for 71 days during 1979 and that based on the report, a proposal has been submitted to the 1st respondent as per Ext.P5 as the Government alone has the competence to take a decision in the matter. According to the 2nd respondent, on receipt of the proposal, Government sought to verify the original of the documents related to the engagement of the petitioner and that originals were obtained and submitted to the 1st respondent on 20/8/2009. It is stated that a decision of the 1st respondent is awaited on the claim of the petitioner for WPC 18967/09 :2 : regularisation. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be attaining the age of superannuation soon and therefore unless the decision of the Government is expedited, the petitioner will not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of regularisation. 4. From the facts as disclosed in the counter affidavit, it is therefore obvious that the matter is pending before the 1st respondent atleast since 20/8/09. Since the issue involved is regularisation of service and as the petitioner contends that he has very little service left, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent should decide on the proposal made by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to decide on the proposal made by the 2nd respondent for the regularisation of the petitioner's service, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp