Kerala High Court
Ramakrishna Pillai .B vs State Of Kerala on 29 August, 2013
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/7TH BHADRA, 1935
WP(C).No. 21428 of 2013 (C)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI .B,
MAVILA PUTHAN VEEDU, (RAMA NILAYAM),
PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA, THAZHATHU VADAKKU P.O,
(VIA) ENATHU, KOLLAM DISTRICT-681 526. (FORMERLY CONDUCTOR,
K.S.R.T.C DEPOT, ADOOR).
BY ADVS.SMT.P.V.ASHA,
SMT.VINEETHA.B.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
3. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. EGY.N. ELIAS,
R2 & R3 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,S.C, K.S.R.T.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C).NO.21428/2013-C:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 : COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.77/2011/TRAN. DTD.22.12.2011.
P2 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE PROVISIONAL
CONDUCTORS OF ADOOR DEPOT.
P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.29.5.12 OF PETITIONER.
P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.6.12 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, ALONG WITH THE LIST OF PROVISIONAL CONDUCTORS.
P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.27.10.2012.
P6 SERIES: COPIES OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES OF PETITIONER FOR 1.1.2011
ONWARDS.
P7 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.13.12.2012 IN W.P.(C). NO.29787/2012.
P8 : COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.248/2013/TRAN. DTD.15.5.2013.
P9 : COPIES OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES OF PETITIONER FOR 2010.
P10: COPY OF DUTY CHART OF PETITIONER ISSUED FROM ADOOR DEPOT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 21428 of 2013
---------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was working as an empanelled Conductor in the 2nd respondent Corporation since 1992 onwards. Eventhough his name was included in the rank list published in the year 2001 for regular appointment, he was not advised by the Public Service Commission, and he continued as an empanelled Conductor. Issue involved in this writ petition is regarding regularisation of his service in the 2nd respondent Corporation, based on Ext.P1 Government Order, in which sanction was accorded for regularising 912 provisional conductors who were included in the rank list of PSC, but only engaged on a provisional basis. He also claimed regularisation on the basis of another Government order GO(MS).77/2011/Tran dt. 22.12.2011 through which provisional employees who have completed 10 years of service on 22.12.2011 was regularised. When the claim of the petitioner was not favourably considered, he had approached this court in WP(C).No.29787/2012. In Ext.P7 judgment the 2nd WP(C). 21428 /2013 2 respondent was directed to consider the request made of the petitioner for regularisation and to take an appropriate decision. Ext.P8 is the consequential order issued, rejecting his claim for regularisation. It is stated in Ext.P8 that the petitioner had quit the job with effect from April 2010 and he was unauthorisedly absented thereafter. The petitioner had produced medical certificates showing that he was continuing under treatment for 'low back ache' and the absence was not unauthorised or wilful. But the 2nd respondent observed that the medical certificate produced is for the period from 1.1.2011 to 23.1.2012, whereas he was absent from duty from April 2010 onwards. According to the 1st respondent, provisional service of the petitioner ended on the date on which he had deserted the job and the medical certificate produced after a gap of 9 months of the unauthorised absence cannot be accepted. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that, with respect to engagement as empanelled Conductor there is no system of granting leave on the basis of medical certificate. The petitioner WP(C). 21428 /2013 3 had produced Ext.P9 series medical certificates which would indicate that he was continuing treatment from June 2010 onwards. Therefore it is contended that, his absence from duty on the basis of illness ought to have been considered and the benefit of Ext.P1 and other Government orders should have been extended in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on Ext.P4 reply given by the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, in order to point out that certain persons who were not in service as on the date of Ext.P1 were already regularised. Hence the petitioner challenges Ext.P8 alleging discrimination and dissimilar treatment.
3. While considering the issue, this court takes note of the fact that, the entire claim for regularisation is based on Ext.P1 Government order issued on 22.12.2011 and another Government order issued on the same date. In both those Government orders sanction was accorded for regularising provisional employees who were under the service of the Corporation, as on the date of those orders, who fulfills certain WP(C). 21428 /2013 4 eligibility criteria stipulated thereunder. The regularisation was given only on a prospective basis. Admittedly the petitioner was not continuing in the provisional service of the Corporation since April 2010. A person who is not in the service of the Corporation as on the date of Ext.P1 Government order cannot claim any benefit thereof, which if granted will amount to permit re-entry into the service of the Corporation. Contention of the petitioner is that there was no system of granting leave on the basis of medical certificate or otherwise, in the matter of provisional engagement. If that be so, there cannot be any regularisation of the provisional service or condonation of absence during the provisional service . Whatever be the reason available, a person who was not continuing in the provisional service as on the date of Ext.P1 cannot claim regularisation, even assuming that he fulfills the eligibility criteria at the time when he had discontinued as a provisional employee. Merely because other persons who were not in service as on the date of Ext.P1 were given regularisation, the petitioner cannot claim such benefits. More over it is noticed that the petitioner will attain the age of WP(C). 21428 /2013 5 superannuation in November 2013. Therefore I do not find any legal ground existing for interference with the decision taken by the respondent in Ext.P8.
Consequently the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
pmn/
WP(C). 21428 /2013 6