Dismissed

Haridas R. v. K.S.R.T.C. and Another

Kerala HC19 Jan 2009WP(C)/1116/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a provisional employee of KSRTC who ceased to be an employee, sought regularisation challenging an order rejecting a fresh representation. Noting the petitioner was no longer an employee and had earlier approached this Court with the same claim which was negatived, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was not inclined to entertain the matter.

Haridas R. Vs K.S.R.T.C. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 1116 of 2009(G) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

HARIDAS R., S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN K., VISHNUSOORY, VELL ROAD, MANKARA P.O. PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

¶10

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

¶11

THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THAMBANUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAKKAD.

¶13

ADV.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶16

==================

¶17

W.P(C).No.1116 of 2009

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2009

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner was a provisional employee who was engaged for some time as a conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He seeks regularisation of his employment. He earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext.P7 judgment by which I directed the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation in that regard. Pursuant thereto, the following order has been passed as Ext.P10.

¶22

“From 2.7.02 Sri.Haridas was continuously abstaining from duty. Considering another request of the petitioner, sanction was accorded to the Assistant Transport Officer, Palakkad, to re-admit Sri.R.Haridas to duty on provisional basis vide this Office Order No.ED(O)85/08 dtd.27.6.08 (copy of this order is produced by the petitioner as Ext.P5). But Sri.R.Haridas has not turned up to accept the provisional service. His request is for appointment on regular establishment.”

¶23

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in this writ petition.

¶24

From Ext.P10 I find that the petitioner had still earlier approached this Court with the same claim, in which his claim had been specifically negatived. It is thereafter, he filed another representation and approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of that representation. Unaware of the earlier judgment of this Court, I directed disposal of his representation. Admittedly the method of recruitment is through PSC. The petitioner is no longer an

¶25

w.p.c.1116/09 2

¶26

employee of the Corporation either provisional or otherwise. Only an existing employee can seek regularisation in service also. For all the above reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶27

sdk+

¶28

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶29

///True copy///

¶30

P.A. to Judge

Haridas R. v. K.S.R.T.C. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridas R. v. K.S.R.T.C. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sebastian Abraham Vs T.Santhosh

Lathika Raghu Vs National Highway Authority of India

P.C.Raju Vs Secretary, Mulakkulam Grama Panchayath

Lalu.C.K. Vs Parameswaran

Jose Ellickal Vs the Registrar of Births & Deaths

Bushra Sulekha Vs Panavoor Grama Panchayath and Others