Disposed

Murali Kumar.P.S v. Chengannur Municipality

Kerala HC5 Apr 2018WP(C)/5785/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in implementing a resolution to include his name in the list of substitute contingent workers. The Court closed the petition granting liberty to approach appropriate authorities regarding his inclusion or non-inclusion in the list.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with liberty to petitioner to take up grievance before appropriate authorities.

Murali Kumar.P.S Vs Chengannur Municipality — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5785 of 2018

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

MURALI KUMAR.P.S, TRIPPALLUR HOUSE, THITTAMEL,CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENGANNUR-689121.

¶13

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

¶14

CHENGANNUR.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN,SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.V.

¶18

WP(C).No. 5785 of 2018 (W)

¶19

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PASSED	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 28.02.2014 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE FORWARD GOVERNM MUNICIP	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.01.2015 ED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE ENT AS WELL AS DIRECTOR OF ALITIES.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE BY THE	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2016 ISSUED GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE PASSED	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 12.07.2017 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE W.P.(C) COURT.	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2017 IN NO. 3703 OF 2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶23

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 11.04.2018

¶24

P.V.ASHA J.

¶25

W.P.(C).No.5785 of 2018

¶26

------------------------------------- Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in

¶29

implementation of Ext.P4 resolution, by which the Municipality had decided to include his name in the list of substitute contingent workers.

¶30

Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.3703 of 2017 challenging Ext.P3 order, by

¶31

which Government rejected the proposal submitted by the Municipality to regularize him. Municipality had thereafter, as per Ext.P4 resolution, decided to include the petitioner's name in the list of

¶32

contingent employees, considering his 13 years of service. The writ petition was closed as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 28.11.2017, recording the said decision

¶33

W.P.(C).No.5785 of 2018

¶34

¶35

of the Municipality.

¶36

In the statement filed in this writ petition, the Municipality has stated that as per the orders in force appointments of contingent workers are to be made from the reserve list of eligible candidates empanelled by the Employment Officer, Employment Exchange of the region. It is also stated that Smt.Sindhu, a contingent worker, who had already been empanelled through Employment Exchange has staked her claim for appointment as substitute contingent worker as her all seniors were absorbed in the regular contingent establishment and that she had approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.4694 of 2018 for a direction to Municipality to appoint her against the retirement vacancy and this Court has directed to place her request before the Municipal Council in the next meeting and the Municipal Council will be considering her request in the next meeting of the Council. It is also stated that the petitioner would be included as

¶37

W.P.(C).No.5785 of 2018

¶38

¶39

the juniormost in the list of contingent substitute workers.

¶40

According to petitioner, placing him as the juniormost could not be of any benefit to him. Therefore, he seeks leave of this Court to challenge the proceedings of the Municipal Council.

¶41

Therefore, the writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to take up his grievance before the appropriate authorities against the inclusion or non inclusion of his name in the list of substitute contingent workers.

¶42

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶43

Murali Kumar.P.S v. Chengannur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali Kumar.P.S v. Chengannur Municipality

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

Leelamma. a Vs Anil Kumar

C.N. Venugopalan Vs Rajiv Kumar, Secretary (Banking), Ministry of Finance

Radhakrishnan L Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Remya Balakrishnan Vs Jayakumar.K.B

Ambily Vijayan Vs the Medical Officer

Dileep K.R. Vs State of Kerala