Disposed

S.Doly v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jul 2010WP(C)/4706/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the petitioners' claim for regularization was belated and could not insist on the same treatment as others. However, it directed the government to consider their representations and pass orders on them expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st Respondent to consider representations Exts.P9 and P10 and pass orders thereon without being trammelled by observations made herein.

S.Doly Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 4706 of 2009(I)

PETITIONER(S):

DOLY.S., PUTHUVAL VILAVEEDU, PALAYAM KUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

(L.D.CLERK, DIRECTORATE SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, TVM) - TERMINATED ON 1996).

¶11

S.GOPAKUMAR, KUNJU VEEDU, PAPPANAMCODE, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

(L.D.CLERK, FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, POLICE DEPT, TVM) - TERMINATED ON 1995)

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE(A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE STATE COMMISSIONER, STATE COMMISSION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,3 SRI. ANTONY MUKATH

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 4706 of 2009

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

EXHIBITS
EXT.P1-	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD IN MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXT.P2-	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD IN MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXT.P3-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF HER MA DEGREE
EXT.P4-	THE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED CAST DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXT.P5-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, POLICE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXT.P6-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY ABSORBING THE PERSONS INTO REGULAR SERVICE, WHO HAD WORKED PROVISIONALLY UPTO 31.7.94 FOR 180 DAYS
EXT.P7-	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXT.P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDERS DATED 30.11.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY ABSORBING THE PERSONS, WHO HAD WORKED PROVISIONALLY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 15.8.98 TO 15.8.1999
EXT.P9-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P10-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

(TRUE COPY)

P.A TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

W.P.(C).4706/2009

Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2010

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioners are physically handicapped persons. Exts.P1 and P2 medical certificates testify the same.

¶31

Ext.P4 shows that the 1^st petitioner was engaged as L.D.Clerk in the Office of the Director of Schedule Caste Development during the period from 20.7.1995 to 12.1.1996. Similarly, Ext.P5 shows that the 2^nd petitioner worked as L.D.Clerk in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Police Department, during the period from 20.3.1995 to 14.9.1995.

¶32

Ext.P6 is the Government Order dated 30.3.2005, ordering that in view of the 'SAARC YEAR', all physically handicapped provisional employees, engaged during the period from 1.1.1993

¶33

to 31.7.1994 and who were still continuing in service, be regularized in service. Ext.P7 is the another Government Order dated 13.10.1999, directing regularization of physically

¶34

W.P.(C).4706/09

¶35

¶36

handicapped persons, who were engaged by the Government by virtue of Government Orders dated 28.9.1998 and 17.5.1999, with effect from the date of the order. Again the Government issued Ext.P8, which shows that pursuant to the Government Orders dated 5.3.2005 and 9.8.2007, physically handicapped persons were engaged by the Government on a provisional basis. By this order, employees so engages were ordered to be regularized.

¶37

Petitioner's case is that by virtue of the aforesaid orders, the physically handicapped persons, who were engaged during the period from 1.1.1993 to 31.3.1994 and 1.1.1997 to 15.8.1999, were ordered to be regularized excluding those who were engaged during the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.12.1996. It is stated that non regularization of physically handicapped persons like the petitioners who were engaged during the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.12.1996 is discriminatory and therefore, warrants interference.

¶38

First of all, the benefit extended to certain physically

¶39

W.P.(C).4706/09

¶40

¶41

handicapped persons by virtue of Exts.P6, P7 and P8 is only a concession. It also is to be noticed that the petitioners were engaged during the period from 20.7.1995 to 12.1.1996 and 20.3.1995 to 14.9.1995. The representations they made are Exts.P9 and P10 which are dated 10.12.2008 and 15.12.2008 respectively. Therefore, the claim made at this distance of time, is highly belated. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in directing that the petitioners also be given the same treatment as given in Exts.P6, P7 and P8.

¶42

Reinstatement and regularization of physically handicapped persons, like the petitioners, are essentially a matter for the Government to decide. According to the petitioners, Exts.P9 and P10 are the representations which they made and on those representations no decision has been taken so far. Though this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction as sought for in the writ petition, that does not mean that the 1^st respondent is deprived of its prerogative right to consider the representations.

¶43

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of

¶44

W.P.(C).4706/09

¶45

¶46

directing the 1^st respondent to consider Exts.P9 and P10 and pass orders thereon, untrammelled by the observations made herein and duly adverting to Exts.P6, P7 and P8 referred to above. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of this writ petition.

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶48

mrcs

S.Doly v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Doly v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod C.A. Vs the State of Kerala

S.Sarath Kumar Vs State of Kerala

C.S.Vasanthakumari and Others Vs State of Kerala

A.Viswanathan Vs K.v.Subramanian

Jayakumar.S Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Divakaran Vs Kerala State Housing Board and Another