Kerala High Court
K.Selvam vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 8 February, 2021
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.16499 OF 2014(J)
PETITIONER/S:
1 K.SELVAM
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.V.KALIDAHSAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
ALUVA DEPOT.
2 P.N.NARAYANAN
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAIR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
PERUMBAVOOR DEPOT.
3 MINI.M.JOY
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.LIJUMON, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
PUTHUKKAD DEPOT.
4 S.D.JOSHY
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.T.K.DHARMAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
NORTH PARAVOOR DEPOT, ERNAKULAM.
5 P.B.SHAJU
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.P.M.BHASKARAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CHALAKKUDY DEPOT.
6 T.A.ALI
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA KUTTY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
ERNAKULAM DEPOT.
7 SUDHEESH A.T.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.THILAKAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
WP(C).No.16499 OF 2014(J)
2
ERNAKULAM DEPOT.
8 T.K.ANILKUMAR
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KODUNGALLUR DEPOT.
9 RAJENDRAN M.R.
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
EMPANELLED CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, PALA DEPOT.
10 M.DINESH BABU
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EMPANELLED
CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,MANNARKAD DEPOT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
SRI.A.K.RAJESH
SRI.REMYA MURALI
SRI.VENKATESH GOPI
RESPONDENT/S:
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.16499 OF 2014(J)
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of February 2021 The petitioners ,ten in number, are working as empaneled Conductors in various depots of the respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation having been appointed through the employment exchange. All the petitioners are having more than 5 years of service and some petitioners are having more than 7 to 8 years as empaneled conductor in the respondent. The petitioners through the instant writ petition seeks regularisation of their services.
2. It is contended that persons with less years of service have filed various representations requesting to regularise them and this Hon'ble Court had directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for regularisation. Some of the petitioners in this writ petition had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.28910/2013 and this Court directed the Corporation to consider the question of regularisation as per the mutual agreement signed by them with the Unions. It is in this background the petitioners have approached this Court for WP(C).No.16499 OF 2014(J) 4 regularisation.
3. There is no representation on behalf of the KSRTC. This Court confronted the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the ratio decidendi culled out in Secretary State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi and Others [2006 (4) SCC 1] , wherein certain parameters have been laid out in regularization of the workers having experience. Ext.P11 only pertains to employment of the petitioners after completion of 179 days, which practice is not correct as per the observation recorded in the afore-quoted judgment. I am of the view that the appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to approach the 4th respondent for regularisation in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's Case (supra). In case such representation is made, the Chairman & Managing Director of the KSRTC shall decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, preferably within two months form the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation.
Sd/ AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Jm/ WP(C).No.16499 OF 2014(J) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.5102 DATED 3/8/2006 ISSUED TOT HE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.606384 DATED 31/7/2006 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.8137 DATED 7/8/2006 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.34156 DATED 7/11/2007 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.12805 DATED 23/12/2000 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.8112 DATED 1/8/2006 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 EXT.P7:TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.8115 DATED 1/8/2006 ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 EXT.P8:TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.3655 DATED 11/9/2006 ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 EXT.P9:TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.82069 DATED 4/8/2008 ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.28910/2013 DATED 16/12/2013.
EXHIBIT P11 EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.P.L.12/001738/14 DATED 28/5/2014.