Kerala High Court
P.Sundaran vs Kerala Water Authority on 5 January, 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2013/2ND JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 10832 of 2013 (D)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. P.SUNDARAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI PONNU, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
CHITTOOR SUB DIVISION,
PALAKKAD (RESIDING AT SREYAS NANGANKURUSSI THEKKE DESOM(PO)
CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. M.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF SHRI MURUKESHAN KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
CHITTOOR SUB DIVISION
PALAKKAD (RESIDING AT PANTHAPARAMBU
MUDAPPALLOOR VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK
PALAKKAD DISTRICT)
3. A.KRISHNAN, AGED 64 YEARS
SON OF SHRI ARU, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
CHITTOOR SUB DIVISION,
PALAKKAD (RESIDING AT CHANDANPURAM HOUSE
CHITTOOR (PO) PALAKKAD DISTRICT).
4. K.ANANDAN, AGED 67 YEARS,
SON OF SHRI KASU, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
CHITTOOR SUB DIVISION
PALAKKAD(RESIDING AT KUZHIKKAL HOUSE
PAZHETHARA CHERAMANGALAM (PO) ALATHUR
PALAKKAD DISTRICT).
BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, CHITOOR SUB DIVISION
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 101.
tss
W.P.(C) NO.10532/2013
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, CHITOOR SUB DIVISION
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 101.
4. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.A.FAYAZ
BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
WP(C).No. 10832 of 2013 (D)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RODER DATED 05-01-1991 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08-08-2001 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-02-20104 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-02-2006 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-03-2006 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVL)
NO 21892 OF 2002.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-11-2006 ISSUED BY THE KERALA
WATER AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-02-2007 ISSUED BY THE KERALA
WATER AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-05-2008 PASSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION(CIVIL) NO 12081 OF 2009.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL) NO 25547 OF 2008.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
tss
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
=========================
W.P(C).No.10832 of 2013
============================
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Admit.
2. Petitioners were engaged by the first respondent (the Kerala Water Authority) as CLR workers from 1986. They claim that in view of Ext.P1, order dated 05.01.1991 they were entitled to be regularised from 1988 onwards. In Civil Appeal No.1 of 2008, the Supreme Court directed the first respondent to regularise the CLR workers but the name of petitioners were omitted by the first respondent. The 4th respondent (State Government) asked the first respondent whether petitioners could be absorbed. Petitioners say that the first respondent by Ext.P4, recommended the same but, that was not approved by the Government. Ext.P8, order is under challenge. There is also a prayer to direct the respondents to absorb petitioners into the NMR service with effect from 1988 and regularise them as per relevant orders with all consequential benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Ext.P8, order dated 20.05.2008 and Ext.P9 and P10, judgments of this Court dated 06.02.2013 and 20.03.2013 in W.P(C).No.10832 of 2013 2 W.P(C).No.12081 of 2009 and W.P(C).Nos.25547 of 2008 and connected Writ Petitions. According to the learned counsel, petitioners are entitled to be regularised.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has contended that petitioners are not entitled to claim regularisation at this belated stage. It is contended that the petitioners 2 to 4 retired even before Ext.P8, order dated 20.05.2008 and hence they cannot claim the benefit of the said order and Exts.P9 and P10, judgments. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent has contended that petitioners are late in approaching this Court and hence the principle of sit back theory enunciated in Pavithran Vs. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 20) would apply.
5. The learned counsel for petitioners has clarified from the averments in the Writ Petition that the first respondent is still in the service of the first respondent while the second petitioner retired in the year, 2011. Petitioners 3 and 4 retired in the year, 2004 and 2001, respectively.
6. Ext.P8, order is dated 20.05.2008. So far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, they retired much prior to Ext.P8, order. Hence claim of the petitioners 3 and 4 based on Ext.P8, order issued much after their retirement cannot be entertained. W.P(C).No.10832 of 2013 3
7. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that he is still in service. True that though Ext.P8, order is dated 20.05.2008, the first petitioner has come to this Court only in the year, 2013 but, I am to bear in mind that granting monetary benefit to the first petitioner would not in any way displace the existing employees. Referring to Ext.P8, this Court has disposed of the Writ Petitions by Exts.P9 and P10, judgments. From Ext.P10, judgment it is seen that petitioner therein who was in service were granted benefits and it was directed that petitioner therein will be entitled to monetary benefits only with effect from 01.01.2013 but his pay shall be notionally fixed from 01.02.1988. So far as the first petitioner who still continues in the service of the first respondent is concerned, there is no reason why that principle should not apply.
8. The second petitioner retired in the year, 2011. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, I make it clear that it is open to him to make appropriate representation before the first respondent seeking appropriate reliefs in view of Exts.P9 and P10, judgments and this judgment and if any such representation is made, the first respondent shall consider that representation and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner also. W.P(C).No.10832 of 2013 4
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed in part as under:
(i) It is declared that the first petitioner who continues in the service of the first respondent is entitled to monetary benefits only with effect from 01.01.2013 but his pay shall be notionally fixed from 01.02.1988. He shall also be entitled to time bound higher grade promotions but the monetary benefits consequent on the grant of time bound grade promotion shall be paid only with effect from 01.01.2013. It is made clear that the first petitioner will not be entitled to claim or get arrears of salary and allowances even after regularisation for the period prior to 01.01.2013.
The first respondent shall issue necessary orders as above within three (3) months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is received.
(ii) Ext.P8, order to the extent it concerns the first petitioner will stand set aside to the above extent.
(iii) The claim of the petitioners 3 and 4 will stand rejected.
(iv) So far as the claim made by the second petitioner is concerned, he is permitted to move appropriate representation before the first respondent or other authority claiming benefits in the light of Exts.P9 and P10, judgments and this judgment.
W.P(C).No.10832 of 2013 5
(v) It is directed that the appropriate
authority shall after hearing the parties
concerned, dispose of the said representations if made by the second petitioner, as per law, within three (3) months from the date on which the representation is preferred.
(vi) The second petitioner shall produce a copy before the first respondent as early as possible.
Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna