Quashed

P.a.Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Sept 2009WP(C)/508/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed orders rejecting regularisation of sanitation workers. It directed the Municipality to regularise petitioners retrospectively from the date their juniors were regularized under a Labour Court award, clarifying they are ineligible for monetary benefits for that period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be regularised w.e.f. date juniors regularised; orders quashed; no monetary benefits for retrospective period.

P.a.Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 508 of 2007(I)

¶6

------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

------------------

¶9

P.A. SUNILKUMAR, SANITATION WORKER, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANNUR-2.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANNUR-2.

¶15

3. SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KANNUR-2.

¶16

ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3 SRI.R.V.SATHYAPRIYAN NAIR FOR R3 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R2,3 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R2,3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SMITHA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22273 OF 2007 THE COURT ON 09/09/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.508/2007

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 28.11.87 OF ENGAGEMENT.

¶22

EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF CONTINGENT WORKERS ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY DT 18.11.89.

¶23

EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER AS SANITATION WORKER DT 21.8.03.

¶24

EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO.O DT 31.10.05.

¶25

EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 28.11.05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 8.8.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 29.9.05 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DT 24.11.05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.

¶29

EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 31.1.06 SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P10: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 10.2.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P11: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 31.3.06 IN WPC NO.6693/06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶32

EXT.P12: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3175/06/LSGD DT 11.12.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXTS. OF R3

¶34

EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DT 29.7.07 ISSUED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL.

¶35

EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 508 & 22273 OF 2007

¶40

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

¶41

Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2009

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

The claim in these writ petitions is mainly for retrospective regularisation and benefits arising therefrom.

¶44

In so far as WP(C) No.508/07 is concerned, the

¶45

petitioner therein commenced service as Sanitation/Badli worker under the 2^nd respondent Municipality from 1/12/87. In Ext.P2 seniority list, his name figures at Sl.No.47. Subsequently, he was regularised by Ext.P3 order w.e.f. 21/8/03. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the award in ID No.24/94 dated 27/7/2004 rendered by the Labour court, Kannur, persons who are similarly situated like the petitioner and juniors to him in service were regularised w.e.f. 26/3/93 pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 orders implementing the award. It is stated that thereupon he submitted requests for similar benefits by Ext.P6, which was rejected by Ext.P7. Appeal filed to the Municipal Council also was rejected. His representation to the Government was also rejected by Ext.P12. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed praying mainly that he should also be regularised w.e.f 26/3/93 as

¶46

WPC 508 & 22273/07

¶47

:2 :

¶48

in the case of his juniors.

¶49

In so far as the petitioner in WP(C) No.22273/07 is concerned, he also commenced service as Sanitation/Badli worker

¶50

under the respondent Municipality from 14/2/89 and was at Sl.No.17 in Ext.P2 seniority list. He was regularised in service w.e.f. 13.8.2004. As in the previous case, here also pursuant to the award rendered by the Labour Court Kannur in ID No.40/96, his juniors were regularised w.e.f. 5/2/94. Representations made by the petitioner to various authorities including the Government was rejected and Ext.P7 is the final order of rejection. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed.

¶51

From the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality and also the stand taken by the Government in the impugned orders, which are Ext.P12 in WP(C) No.508/07 and Ext.P7 in WP(C) No.22273/07, what is reflected is that the juniors were regularised based on the directions issued by the Labour Court in the industrial disputes, to which they were parties, and that, as the petitioners were not parties to the industrial dispute, they could not have been regularised extending the benefit of the award.

¶52

True, petitioners also have no case that they were

¶53

WPC 508 & 22273/07

¶54

:3 :

¶55

parties to the industrial dispute. However, fact remains that the beneficiaries of the award are similarly situated like the petitioners and that those who have been regularised pursuant to the award in ID Nos.24/94 and 40/96 are juniors to the petitioners. Having regard to the fact that the regularisation was granted to the juniors of the petitioners and their exclusion was only for the technical reason that they were not parties to the Industrial Disputes, I see no reason for denying regularisation to the petitioners atleast with effect from the date on which their immediate juniors have been regularised. Any other view in the matter will be harsh and perpetuation of injustice which will run throughout the petitioners career.

¶56

Therefore the stand taken by the 1^st respondent in Ext.P12 in WP(C) No.508/2007 and Ext.P7 in WP(C) No.22273/07 cannot be upheld and accordingly these orders are quashed. Respondent Municipality is therefore directed to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date on which their juniors have been regularised. It is made clear that on the basis of the regularisation thus given, though the petitioners will be eligible to have their pay and other benefits notionally fixed, the petitioners

¶57

WPC 508 & 22273/07

¶58

:4 :

¶59

shall not be eligible for any monetary benefits for the retrospective period covered by such regularisation. It is directed that the regularisation as above shall be ordered, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶60

Writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶61

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶62

P.a.Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

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

M.a.Santhakumari Vs the State of Kerala and Others

P.Basheer Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societie

T.C.Poulose Vs Kseb and Others

Manneera Malayora Karshaka Sangham Vs State of Kerala

Rajiv Nagar Residents' Welfare Assn. Vs Corporation of Cochin

Sheena.T.v Vs the State of Kerala