Disposed

Manoj Kumar B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 May 2022WP(C)/13697/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, contingent workers of Erattupetta Municipality, filed a writ petition challenging termination of their services and seeking regularization. The High Court directed the 1st respondent to consider representations filed by petitioners and maintain status quo on their employment until a reasoned order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Directive to 1st respondent to consider representations and pass reasoned order within two months; status quo on employment continued.

Manoj Kumar B Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 28TH VAISAKHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13697 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 MANOJ KUMAR B AGED 46 YEARS CONTINGENT WORKER, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121

¶8

2 RAJEEV.C.M., CONTINGENT WORKER, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121

¶9

3 ANIL A.M., CONTINGENT WORKER, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121

¶10

4 SHINY.P.K., CONTINGENT WORKER, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121 BY ADVS. BRIJESH MOHAN RESMI G. NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

¶14

3 ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

4 THE SECRETARY, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121 BY ADV SUNIL V.MOHAMMED

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 13697 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

GP VENUGOPAL V. ; SC FOR R3,4 ADV. SUNIL V. MUHAMMED

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 13697 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 18^th day of May, 2022

¶25

Petitioners are contingent workers working under the 3^rd respondent, Erattupetta Municipality. They were initially appointed as per Ext.P8, on their names being sponsored by the employment exchange. The petitioners grievances is that, even though the Municipality decided to regularize the services of six other contingent workers, who were also employed through employment exchange, the service of petitioners was decided to be discontinued / terminated as per Ext.P10 and fresh hands engaged in their place. By order dated 8.4.2022, status quo with respect to the petitioners employment was directed to be continued.

¶26

2.Pending the writ petition, the petitioners have approached the 1^st respondent by way of Exts.P11 to P14 highlighting their grievance and seeking regularization of their service.

¶27

Insofar as the petitioners have approached the 1^st respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent to take up Exts.P11 to P14 and to pass a reasoned order thereon within two months. Till orders are passed

¶28

WP(C) NO. 13697 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

on the representations, status quo with respect to the petitioners employment shall be continued.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 13697 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13697/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/05/2022
Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 16/05/2022
Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 16/05/2022
Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 16/05/2022

Manoj Kumar B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar B 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

Vasantha Kumari Vs Kerala Stae Council for Science

Dr.Raghunadhan C Vs Kerala State Council for Science Technology & Environment

M/S. Chand v Foods, Vs Leela John

V.N. Ashok Kumar, Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Abraham Andrews @ K.a.Abraham Vs Official Liquidator

Ashraf.P.K Vs M/S.Sreekovil Chits Company (P) Limited (in Liquidation)