IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24128 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUMATHA, KAKUZHIKUNNIL,295 HARIJAN COLONY, EDATHALA, ALUVA. 2. E.V.VINOD, 34 YEARS EARATHARA HOUSE, ARDI COMPANY CANAL ROAD, ASOKAPURAM. P.O.ALUVA 3. M.S.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.SIVARAMAN, MOOTHI PAARAMBIL VEEDU KULAVANKUNNU, CHENGAMANADU P.O.,ALUVA 4. M.T.AYYAPPAN,S/O. THANGAVELU AGED 27 YEARS, KAITHOLIPARAMBU MADHAVAPURAM COLONY, PATTERIPURAM, ALUVA 5. A.A.CHANDRAN @ CHANDRASEKHARAN'S/O.AYYAP PAN,AGED 45 YEARS, AAIAMUTTAM,GANDHI NAGAR COLONY ERUMATHALA, ALUVA 6. L.GANESHAN,S/O. LAKSHMANAN AGED 27 YEARS, MADHVAPURAM COLONY COLONY PATEERIPURAM, ALUVA. 7. M.K.RAJU,S/O. KOCHAYYAPPAN AGED 39 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBIL, CHENGAMANADU,ALUVA 8. M.C.SUBRAN @ SUBRAHMANIAN, S/O.CHOTHI, AGED 45 YEARS, MUTHANI MOLATHU EDATHALA P.O.ALUVA 9. K.M.SIVAN, S/O.KOCHUMATHA AGED 39 YEARS, KAKUZHIKUNNIL, NORTH VAZHAKKULAM, ALUVA. WPC NO.24128/08 -2- 10. E.K.SASI, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 35 YEARS ERATHIPARAMBIL,MADRASSA LANE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.SANU S. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24128/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DT 29.3.2001. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 20.11.2002 IN OP NO.28041/2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.29283/2004. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT 8.8.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.236/07 DT 31.7.2007. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 19.3.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO EXT.P6 DT 21.4.09. EXTS. OF R1 ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B2/18692/2004 DT 21.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 11.9.2007. EXTS. OF R3 EXT.R3(a): PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DT 22.4.1982. EXT.R3(b): PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DT 7.8.2000. EXT.R3(c): PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT. 9.8.2000. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24128 OF 2008 (V) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The claim of the petitioners is for the benefit of Ext.P1 Government order providing for regularisation of employees of the Municipality engaged on a casual basis. It is stated that prior to 31/12/2000, the 1st respondent Municipality engaged the petitioners as CLR workers for cleaning works. It is stated that in view of Ext.P1 Government Order, the petitioners are entitled to be regularized and it is with this prayer the writ petition is filed. 2. A statement dated 14/10/2008 and a counter affidavit has been filed by the Municipality. It is stated by the Municipality that petitioners 1,3,4,5,6,8 and 10 were engaged by them on CLR terms before 31/12/2000 on daily wages. It is stated that petitioners 2, 7 and 9 were so engaged after 31/12/2000. The Government have also filed a counter affidavit where they affirm the existence of Ext.P1 Government Order. 3. Now that the Municipality has conceded the fact that atleast petitioners 1,3,4,5,6,8 and 10 have been engaged before 31/12/2000, it is for the Municipality to consider the claim of the WPC 24128/08 :2 : petitioners for the benefit of Ext.P1 Government Order. However, Municipality says that subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P1 Government Order, by Annexure B to the statement, they have sought a clarification from the Government whether appointments could be made and that clarification has not still been given by the Government, which contributed to the delay in considering the claims of the petitioners. As already stated, the Government have in the affidavit affirmed existence of Ext.P1 Government Order and if that be so, the Municipality is at liberty to consider the claim of the petitioners 1,3,4,5,6,8 and 10 for regularisation in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order even without awaiting for clarification as sought for by it vide Annexure B attached to the statement filed. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Municipality shall consider the claim of the aforesaid petitioners for the benefit of regularisation as ordered in Ext.P1. Orders as above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp