Disposed

M.G.Sivaraman v. Kothamangalam Municipality

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016WP(C)/24938/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns casual labourers seeking regularization benefits. The Court directed the respondents to comply with directions in a related judgment regarding the petitioners' claims based on their seniority ranking and a Government Order, dismissing the petitioners' grievance about being overlooked in a substitute employee list.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to comply with directions in W.P.(C).No.24329 of 2008 regarding the petitioners' claims for regularization benefits within two months.

M.G.Sivaraman Vs Kothamangalam Municipality — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 24938 OF 2008 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

1. M.G. SIVARAMAN, MULLAMTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, PAYIPPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM, WORKING AS CASUAL LABOUR, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, PUTHUPPADY P.O., KARAKKUNNAM.

¶8

2. N.S. KOCHUMUHAMMED, NADAPPADAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM., WORKING AS

¶9

CASUAL LABOUR KOTHAMANGALAM, MUNICIPALITY, PUTHUPPADY P.O., KARAKKUNNAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶11

SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. KOTHAMANGLAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

2. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. SHIBI ANTONY, PUTHENPURAKKAL, PUTHUPPADY P.O., KARAKKUNNAM.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).NO. 24938 OF 2008 (R)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF SUBSTITUTE WORKERS PUBLISHED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29.01.99

¶23

EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2001

¶24

EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.32179/06 DATED 20.09.2007

¶25

EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 7.6.2008

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P A TO JUDGE

¶29

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.24938 of 2008 ............................................................. Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioners, who are part time contingent workers engaged by the 1^st respondent Municipality, have a case that in Ext.P1 seniority list of CLR workers, the 1^st petitioner is shown as serial No.7 and the 2^nd petitioner has not been included in the said list. Reference is made to Ext.P2 Government order, whereby there was a direction to maintain a list of casual workers as substitute workers. The claim of the petitioners is based on Ext.P2 Government Order. It is seen that pursuant to a W.P.(C).No.32179 of 2006 filed by the 4^th respondent herein and others Ext.P3 the judgment came to be passed directing the respondent Municipality to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for appointment as substitute employees for the purposes of regularisation in service against vacancies that arose in future. Pursuant to the said judgment, the 1^st respondent Municipality passed Ext.P4 order appointing the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.32179 of 2006 as substitute employees. The grievance of the petitioners in the

¶32

-2-

¶33

W.P.(C). No.24938 of 2008

¶34

instant writ petition is essentially that the 1^st petitioner was already ranked as serial No.7 in Ext.P1 list, and hence, while granting the benefits to the persons in Ext.P4 order the claim of the 1^st petitioner based on his ranking in Ext.P1 list could not have been over looked. In this connection it is seen that by a judgment dated 30.03.2009 in W.P.(C).No.24329 of 2008, wherein certain other persons similarly placed as petitioners herein had approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order that granted the benefit to the 4^th respondent, this Court had issued directions to the respondent Municipality to consider the claim of the petitioners therein on the basis of Ext.P2 Government order. Inasmuch as the situation that obtained in the said writ petition is almost identical to that in the instant case, save for the fact that the 2^nd petitioner was not included in Ext.P1 list, I am of the view that the directions in the judgment dated 30.03.2009 in W.P.(C). No.24329 of 2008 ought to be made applicable to the petitioners in this writ petition also. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed by directing the respondents to comply with the directions in the judgment dated 30.03.2009 in W.P.(C).No.24329 of 2008 in the case of the petitioners in this writ petition also. The respondents

¶35

-3-

¶36

W.P.(C). No.24938 of 2008

¶37

shall do the needful within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

The writ petition disposed as above.

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

mns/08.06.16

M.G.Sivaraman v. Kothamangalam Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.G.Sivaraman v. Kothamangalam Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs Smt.Jitha

Meeramma Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Anto Vs the State of Kerala

O.M.Bineesh Vs the Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur

Shejith.a.J. Vs Union of India

Dr.B.Jayaprakashini Vs State of Kerala