Dismissed

Sugesh S v. Alappuzha Municipality

Kerala HC19 Sept 2022WP(C)/16331/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought reinstatement and regularization after pending proceedings barring his claim were concluded. The Court directed the Municipality to consider the petitioners re-engagement representation on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner application for re-engagement/regularization on merits within one month, untrammelled by the impugned order.

Sugesh S Vs Alappuzha Municipality — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO.16331 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER :-

¶6

SUGESH S., AGED 42 YEARS S/O.SUGUNAN, TEKKETHOPPIL HOUSE, LEJANATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. BY ADVS. ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R.GANESH

¶7

RESPONDENTS :-

¶8

1 THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O. WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2 THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, M.O. WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. BY SRI.AZAD BABU, SC

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C) NO.16331 OF 2022

¶11

-: 2 :-

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Dated this the 19th day of September, 2022

¶14

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶15

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent Municipality to reinstate the petitioner as substitute contingent worker in the 1^st respondent Municipality and regularize his service on the ground that the reasons stated in Ext.P3 order is no more in existence.

¶16

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to appoint the petitioner as substitute contingent worker in one of the vacancies that exists in the 1^st respondent Municipality with immediate effect.

¶17

(iii) To issue a direction to the 1^st respondent Municipality to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to appoint him as substitute contingent worker and regularize his service.”

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶21

that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the 1^st respondent seeking reinstatement as Substitute Contingent Worker in the 1^st respondent and to regularise his service. However, by Ext.P3 order dated 30.10.2015, the petitioner was informed that

¶22

WP(C) NO.16331 OF 2022

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

there was a writ petition pending before this Court with regard to appointment of Contingent Worker as W.P.(C) No.18436/2015 and that the request of the petitioner for reinstatement cannot be considered till the said writ petition is disposed of. It is further stated that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner with regard to assault of a fellow employee and that the same has also to be disposed of before the petitioner's claim can be considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by Ext.P4 judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha in C.C. No.708/2017, the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges against him. It is submitted that by Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.1.2022, the writ petition referred to in Ext.P3, that is, W.P.(C) No.18436/2015 has also been dismissed. It is, therefore, contended that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law.

¶25

Having heard the learned Standing Counsel also, I am of the opinion that in view of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments, the contentions raised by the petitioner that he is entitled to reinstatement as Substitute Contingent Worker as also his request for regularisation is liable to be considered in accordance with law.

¶26

There will, accordingly, be a direction that in case the petitioner approaches the 2^nd respondent with an appropriate

¶27

WP(C) NO.16331 OF 2022

¶28

-: 4 :-

¶29

representation seeking re-engagement as Substitute Contingent Worker as also seeking an appointment as Contingent Worker, the representation shall be considered in accordance with law on its merits and appropriate orders shall be passed, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by Ext.P3.

¶30

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶31

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶32

Jvt/19.9.2022

¶33

WP(C) NO.16331 OF 2022

¶34

-: 5 :-

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16331/2022

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

Exhibit P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.H/7403/10 DATED 18.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO. 9597/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. H7 -19120/2012 DATED DATED 30.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER TO REGULARIZE HIM AS SUBSTITUTE CONTINGENT WORKER.
Exhibit P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2019 IN C.C. NO. 708/2017 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.01.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 18436/2015.
Exhibit P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER R.T.I. ACT SUBMITTED BY MUJEEB RAHMAN DATED 24.06.2014
Exhibit P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO EXT. P6.

Sugesh S v. Alappuzha Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugesh S v. Alappuzha 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

Sumesh T.S. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

Nubaisath C.H Vs Union of India

Leela L Vs Union of India

C.v.Viswanathan Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

Samuel.K.J., Vs the State Police Chief

Shaji C.S., Vs Managing Director