IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6797 of 2007(H) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. C.K. BALACHANDRAN, MULLANTHADATHIL, P.O. KOLLAM, KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE. WORKING AS SANITATION WORKER,KOYILANDY MUNCIPALITY KOYILANDY. 2. B.K.SANTHA, BHAGAVATHI KANDI HOUSE, KOYILANDY, WORKING AS -DO- -DO-. 3. N.K. MOHANAN, KUZHICHAL COLONY, P.O. PERUVATHOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, WORKING AS -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOYILANDY,KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 6797/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THEORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 28.3.01. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES DATED 15.06.02. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.03. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 18194/02 DATED14.1.05. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDEROF THE DIRECTOR DATED 18.7.05. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.8.05. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OFTHEREPRESENTATION DATED 01.10.05. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). No. 1959/06 DATED 24.8.06. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.06. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 6797 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners have been working as contingent workers in Koilandi Municipality. Initially they were engaged in the erstwhile Koilandi Panchayat. When the Panchayat was upgraded as a Municipality, they were allowed to continue in service in the Municipality also. Subsequently, 10 regular posts were sanctioned. In accordance with Government Orders on the subject, by Ext.P1 order dated 28.03.01, the services of the petitioners were regularised in three of the newly sanctioned posts with effect from 28.03.01. Subsequently, some employment exchange hands who entered service subsequent to the petitioners, raised a claim for regularisation ahead the petitioners and seniority accordingly. The employment exchange hands challenged Ext.P1 order in OP No.18556/01. This court directed the Director of Municipalities to consider the claims of rival parties after hearing both of them. Thereafter, by Ext.P2 the Director of Municipalities held that the employment exchange hands are entitled to preference over the WPC :6797/07 -:2:- petitioners. That was challenged by the petitioners in OP 18194/02. This court found that the claim of the petitioners was not rightly considered and therefore quashed Ext.P2 order. Thereafter the Director was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing all parties. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P5 order was passed by the Director of Municipalities holding that in the 10 posts which were sanctioned, the petitioners should be appointed as 1,2 & 3 and in the balance 7 vacancies, the employment exchange hands should be accommodated. That order was challenged by the employment exchange hands in W.P.(C). No. 24996 of 2005 which was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioners were given regularisation with effect from 01.08.05. Against the same the petitioners filed Ext.P7 representation. Since it was not disposed of, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 19595 of 2006 in which by Ext.P8 judgment the 1st respondent was directed to consider Ext.P7 and pass orders thereon. Subsequent thereto, Ext.P9 order has been passed by the 1st respondent whereby the services of the petitioners were notionally regularised with effect from 14.01.03 with WPC :6797/07 -:3:- monetary benefits from 01.08.05 only. Ext.P9 is under challenge before me. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that by virtue of the judgment of this Court, and Ext.P5 order of the Director of Municipalities, the right of the petitioners to be accommodated in the first three posts as done in Ext.P1 has been upheld. Therefore the petitioners are entitled to regularisation and seniority with effect from 28.03.01. They would further submit that the petitioners have been continuously working without break from 28.03.01 onwards and they were getting pay in the regular scale of pay till 14.01.03, when their services were terminated, even after which also they were continuing to do the same job but as daily wage employees. As such from 28.03.01 onwards till this date, the petitioners are continuously doing the same work and therefore they are entitled to continuity of regularisation from 28.03.01 and payment of arrears of salary from 14.01.03 also. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. They are unable to controvert the contention of the petitioners that in view of Ext.P1 and subsequent orders, the petitioners are eligible for WPC :6797/07 -:4:- regularisation in service from 28.03.01. Their contention now is that by Ext.P8 judgment this Court has only directed consideration of Ext.P7 and in Ext.P7 they had sought regularisation only with effect from 14.01.03 and therefore they are not eligible for any better benefits. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In view of Exts.P1 and Ext.P5, the right of the petitioners for regularisation in service with effect from 28.03.01 in the scale of pay applicable cannot now be denied to them. Since they have been continuously working discharging the same duties, they cannot also be denied the salary in the scale of pay applicable from 28.03.01. In fact, the petitioners were so paid salary in the scale of pay up to 13.01.03. Their services were terminated from 14.01.03, which has been set aside and they are now eligible for continuity of regularisation without any break from 28.03.01 and subsequent monetary benefits also. The contention of the respondents that in Ext.P7 the petitioners had sought regularisation only with effect from 14.01.03 does not appear to be correct. Of course Ext.P7 is not very happily worded. But from contingent employees like the petitioners, it is only to be expected. WPC :6797/07 -:5:- But I find that they have categorically stated that they are entitled to continuity of regularisation from 14.01.03, i.e., the date on which regularisation were cancelled. Therefore in Ext.P7 also their claim was for continuity of regularisation from 28.03.01 without any break which break has happened on 14.01.03. In view of my above findings, I am satisfied that the petitioners are eligible for the relief prayed for by them. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that petitioners are entitled to continuity of regular service from 28.03.01 without break. They shall be eligible for arrears of salary in the scale of pay applicable to the regular post with effect from 14.01.03 also. The arrears shall be paid as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb