Kerala High Court
Thankaraj And Ors. vs Kerala Water Authority on 22 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)IIILLJ1584KER
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan
JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioners were appointed provisionally in the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department during the years 1981-83. They sought for regularisation of their services. Similarly placed persons approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court considered the question in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 2228 : 1991-II-LLJ-65 (SC). This Writ Petition was filed for regularisation of service of the petitioners from the date of their joining service. Counsel for the Water Authority, Smt. Chincy Gopakumar submitted that Supreme Court has not ordered regularisation from the date of their joining service. According to Water Authority, Supreme Court has ordered regularisation only with immediate effect. Judgment was delivered on September 10, 1990. On the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Kerala Water Authority resolved to regularise 302 such employees of the erstwhile Public Health Engineering Department as per resolution dated February 27, 1991. Accordingly, those persons were regularised with effect from September 19, 1990.
2. I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their service from the date of joining duty cannot be sustained. Supreme Court had only directed regularisation of service only with immediate effect. If the Supreme Court wanted to give regularisation from the date of joining, the same would have been provided in the judgment. Petitioners were admittedly engaged on provisional basis. However, if claim for regularisation is raised by provisional hands, and it is acceded to by department, the same would normally be done prospectively Supreme Court had occasion to consider the said question in Registrar General of India v. V. Thippa Setty, 1998 (8) SCC 690, relevant portion of which is extracted below:
"If ad hoc service is regularised from back date, it will disturb seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre. Ordinarily regularisation must take affect prospectively and not retrospectively. Ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular. At times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting relaxation, and therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniority of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant, but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniority cannot be overlooked".
3. I am of the view that the above mentioned principle is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Apart from the fact that there is no such direction in Jacob's case to regularise the service of the petitioners with retrospective effect, going by the above mentioned principle, since the appointment was only provisional, they cannot claim regularisation retrospectively.
4. In the said circumstances, Writ Petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.