Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Raveendran C.Charuvila Puthen Veedu vs State Of Kerala on 29 March, 2001

       

  

   

 
 
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

        FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/17TH MAGHA, 1936

                     WP(C).No. 3819 of 2015 (B)
                     ---------------------------

     PETITIONER(S):
     --------------

          1.  RAVEENDRAN C.CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU
       MOOTHAMKONAM, PAZHAKUTTI PO
       CONTINGENT WORKER NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY

          2.  SURESH BABU, KODIPPURATHU VEEDU,
       PAZHAKUTTI PO
       CONTINGENT WORKER NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY

          3.  SHARAFUDDIN K,
       THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, 10TH STONE, MANCHA P.O.
       NEDUMANGADU
       CONTINGENT WORKER NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY

          4.  SATHYAN K, S.S. BHAVAN, VADAKKELA, AANAD PO.,
       CONTINGENT WORKER NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY

          5.  UNNI K, CHARUVILA VEEDU,
       MOOTHAMKONAM, NEDUMANGAD PO.
       CONTINGENT WORKER NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY

          6.  SURENDRAN A, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
       MOOTHAMKONAM, PAZHAKUTTI P.O.

       BY ADVS.SRI.B.M.SHA
                        SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN

     RESPONDENT(S):
     --------------

          1. STATE OF KERALA
       REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
       LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

          2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
       THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

         3. NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY
       NEDUMANGAD PO, TRIVANDRUM
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 695 541

       R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI M A FAYAZ

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 3819 of 2015 (B)         2



                              APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------

EXT. P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) 91/2001/LAD DATED 29-03-2001

EXT. P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CHAIR PERSON FIR
CIRCULATING THE SAME TO THE OUNCILORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 03-
04-2012

EXT. P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE GOUR PHOTO OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER
CLASS FOUR EMPLOYEES PRINTED AND  PUBLISHED IN THE 2014-15 BUYDGET OF
MUNICIPALITY

EXT. P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-02-2009 IN W.P.C NO.
5641/2009 (A)

EXT. P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01-07-2013 IN WPC NO.
36077/2010 (H)

EXT. P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E4/R5/3197/09 DATED 21-06-2014
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY

EXT. P8:-TRUE COPYOF THE ORDER NO. 47872/EU4/09/LSGD DATE 17-08-2009
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXT. P9:- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24-12-2014 SUIBMTTED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.



RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL




                                                           True Copy/


                                                         P A to Judge



              A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
          =========================
                  W.P(C).No.3819 of 2015
         ============================
         Dated this the 06th day of February, 2015

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioners are working as contingent workers engaged on daily wages from 2005 onwards in 3rd respondent Municipality. Petitioner relies on Exts.P1 and P2 government orders, thereby the Government ordered to regularize similarly placed contingent workers working in different Local Self Government Institutions. In the light of the above order, petitioners were also made a request before the Municipality by Ext.P9 for regularization. Petitioners submit that no action has been taken so far to consider their claim for regularization. Aggrieved, petitioners approached this court.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to consider and take appropriate decision on Ext.P9 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

Sbna/06/02/15