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 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Thara N vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2020

Author: A.M.Shaffique

Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
                                 &
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

  FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

                           WA.No.1583 OF 2020

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2020 IN WP(C) 5489/2020(I) OF
                       HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             THARA N.
             AGED 43 YEARS
             W/O.DILEEP, CHIRAPPURATH HOUSE,
             MANAKKAPPADAM, THRISSUR - 680617.

             BY ADV. SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD (PALKULANGARA)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

      2      THE DIRECTOR
             THE KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
             PEECHI, PEECHI (PO), THRISSUR - 690653.

      3      THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
             STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,
             TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN,
             PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

      4      THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE
             TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN,
             PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

             SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN -SPL. GOVT.PLEADER (FORESTS)
             SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KSCSTE
             SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT, SC, KFRI

    THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2020,
    THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1583/2020                 2




                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of December 2020 A.M.Shaffique, J.

This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5489 of 2020. The Writ petition was filed challenging Exhibit P13 order passed by the Director, Kerala Forest Research Institute rejecting representation of the petitioner for regularisation of service. The petitioner claims that she had been working as a typist under the Director, Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) from 8.11.2011. By Exhibit P3 dated 4.6.2014, the petitioner's representation for regularisation was rejected by the Director. In the said order, it was stated that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis. There are persons who are working on daily wages from 10 to 15 years under different projects in KFRI. It is further stated that she has been working as a typist at different spells under various heads for different projects since November 2011 as if her engagement was purely W.A.No.1583/2020 3 temporary and time bound to the project concerned. She was engaged in the project directly by the principal investigator to the respective projects and she was not directly being engaged by KFRI. Her remuneration was paid from the respective projects. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the request for regularisation had been rejected.

2. The petitioner approached this Court and again a direction has been issued to consider the request for regularisation which ultimately resulted in Exhibit P13 order.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the fact that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis directly by the principal investigator/project co-ordinators, observed that she cannot claim regularisation under the respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition has been dismissed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are no Rules which prescribes any W.A.No.1583/2020 4 qualification for the post of typist. That apart once she has been working for a long period, even though on daily wages, she is entitled for regularisation.

5. We do not think that a person who had been working on daily wages basis is entitled for regularisation. Even otherwise, she was engaged for various projects undertaken by the project co-ordinators and was not directly employed by the respondent Company. She also does not have the qualification of typist cum stenographer required for the sanctioned posts in the Department.

In such circumstances, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-

GOPINATH.P. JUDGE csl W.A.No.1583/2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.1140/R1/2004/P&ARD DATED 21.02.2004 OF GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI QUERY AND REPLY DATED 23.10.2020 FROM KSCSTE.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED CHEQUE LEAF OF THE BANK A/C. OF RESPONDENT NO.2.