Dismissed

Akhil Dev v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2024WP(C)/3346/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanitary workers appointed on compassionate grounds after their CLR-worker predecessors died before regularization sought to quash the Director of LSGI's order rejecting their regularization and to be made permanent CLR workers of Kochi Corporation. The High Court found no provision permits appointment of legal heirs of contingent or daily wage employees and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Akhil Dev Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 AKHIL DEV AGED 31 YEARS S/O SAHADEVAN, ARYA BHAVAN, KULASEKHARA MANGALAM, VAIKOM, PIN - 686608

¶7

2 T.M SUMATHY AGED 49 YEARS W/O C.K RAJAPPAN, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, KADUNGAMANGALAM, THIRUVANKULAM, PIN - 682305

¶8

3 SARASWATHY MURUGAN AGED 51 YEARS W/O LATE MURUGAN, 26/680, R.H COLONY, NAZARETH, KOCHI-682002 AND RESIDING AT ARAKKCHIRA HOUSE, EROOR P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682306

¶9

4 NEETHU ANEESH AGED 34 YEARS W/O ANEESH, MANULIPADAM HOUSE, K.S.N MENON ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682016 BY ADVS. SHRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, CGC ELVIN PETER P.J. K.R.GANESH(K/000551/1991) GOURI BALAGOPAL(K/002008/2019) ABHIJITH.K.ANIRUDHAN(K/1644/2020) SREELEKSHMI A.S.(K/1313/2021)

¶10

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶11

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY L.S.G.I DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶15

3 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY

¶16

L.S.G.I DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶17

4 NAGARKARIYA DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANDHANCOD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695038

¶18

5 THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682011

¶19

BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ARUN ANTONY

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

GP SMT ANIMA. M, SC SMT P.K RESHMA, SC SHRI . JANARDHANA SHENOY

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶24

¶25

BASANT BALAJI

¶26

............................................................

¶27

W.P(C) No. 3346 of 2023

¶28

............................................................. Dated this the 01^st day of July, 2024

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioners are sanitary workers, working under the

¶31

5^th respondent. They were appointed on compassionate grounds. Hence, steps were taken to regularize the CLR workers in the Corporation, and the petitioners were excluded. They approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 19049 of 2021. The 5^th respondent filed a statement in the said writ petition stating that the corporation has decided to seek Government sanction for regularizing the petitioners in the contingent post. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to take up Annexure R3(a) and R3(b) in that case and pass appropriate orders within an outer limit of 2 months from the receipt of the copy of a judgment. The

¶32

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶33

¶34

Director of Local Self-Government Institutions, as per Ext.P6 order dated 27.08.2022, rejected the decision of the Corporation Council to regularize the petitioners as CLR workers. It is challenging Ext.P6 that they had approached this Court for the following reliefs:-

¶35

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling entire records leading to Exhibit P-6 and quash the same by holding it as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶36

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 5^th respondent to regularize the petitioners as C.L.R. workers by implementing the decision of Corporation Council issued as per Exhibit P-2 and Exhibit P-3 as 5^th respondent have ample power to do so as done by other Municipalities which is evident from Exhibit P-8 to P-14 orders;

¶37

iii) This Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with production of English translation of vernacular Exhibits;

¶38

iv) Allow the cost of this writ petition; and

¶39

v) Allow any other relief which this Honourable Court deem fit and proper to grant to meet the ends of justice to redress genuine grievance of the petitioners.”

¶40

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, contending that the petitioners are working as temporary sanitation workers in Cochin Corporation. They are the legal heirs of the daily wage contingent employees who were included in the seniority list for regularization in Cochin Corporation but died before regularization. They seek regularization as CLR workers. The Compassionate Employment Scheme was introduced to give employment to permanent employees' dependents. Therefore, the scheme's benefit is not available to the dependents of CLR daily wage employees.

¶43

The CLR workers selected through Employment Exchange or those who joined duty before 31.12.2000 were considered for regularization in Municipality/Corporation. The petitioner's regularization as permanent sanitation workers is not considered because they became the workers only on the death of the original employee after 31.12.2000. In the judgment in Umadevi 's case, the apex Court has already held

¶44

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

that persons who work on a daily wage basis and contract basis cannot be regularized as a matter of right. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶47

A statement is also filed by respondent No.5. It is stated that the appointment of contingent category posts under the Municipal Corporations is under the jurisdiction of the respective Municipal Councils under section 224(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. As such, the appointments can only be under the provisions of G.O (Ms) No.14/82/LBR dated 22.04.1982. Accordingly, only persons appointed through Employment Exchange or employed daily wages prior to 31.12.2000 are eligible to be appointed on the basis of seniority in the CLR list for contingent employees. The petitioners are the dependents of the CLR employees who were included in the list prepared for regularization, who died before the permanent appointment. The petitioners were also added as the last names in the CLR list and given temporary employment based on humanitarian considerations. The

¶48

¶49

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶50

Corporation Council had decided to include the dependents of the earlier CLR workers, who died before they were made permanent and to seek the approval of the Government. There is no provision for providing permanent employment to the dependents of the workers who died before they became permanent. Therefore, the Corporation is legally incapable of overacting Ext. P6 Government Order.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent Corporation.

¶52

It is not in dispute that the petitioners were given an appointment on a compassionate basis. They are dependent on those persons who were working as CLR workers under the 5^th respondent. It is also a fact that these persons were included in the list of CLR workers who were directed to be regularized in service. Unfortunately, before regularization happened, the petitioner's predecessors expired, and based on a compassionate scheme, they were given appointments as

¶53

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶54

¶55

CLR workers on daily wages. As contended by the counsel appearing for the respondents, there is no provision for giving appointment to a legal heir of a contingent employee or a daily waged employee. Only a regular employee's legal heir can be appointed in the Dying in Harness scheme. However, taking a humanitarian view, the petitioners were appointed CLR workers. Regularisation of CLR workers is based on the length of service they have provided to the Corporation. The list was drawn considering the mode of appointment and the total number of years they have worked in the Corporation. The petitioners were given appointments only after the death of the original CLR workers.

¶56

As stated above, regularization is possible only for persons with a long career in the Corporation. The petitioners admittedly became CLR workers on the death of their kith or kin. Therefore, the rejection of the regularization of the petitioners as per Ext P6 on the ground that there is no provision for regularizing the petitioners who have an

¶57

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶58

¶59

appointment under the dying in harness scheme on the death of another daily wage employee. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought, and consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶60

Sd/BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

¶61

Anu

¶62

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶63

¶64

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3346/2023

¶65

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶66

Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF 18 PERSONS INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF DATE OF APPOINTMENT DATED NIL.

¶67

Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION OF KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATED 06.02.2021.

¶68

Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF REQUESTING SANCTION DATED 10.11.2021 FOR REGULARIZING THE SERVICE OF THE PERSONS IN CONTINGENT POST.

¶69

Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11/03/2022 IN W.P.C NO. 19049 OF 2021 OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶70

Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2022 IN CONTEMPT CASE(c) NO. 1568 OF 2022 OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶71

Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/08.2022 OF THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

¶72

Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 11/11/2022 SUBMITTED BY SUKUMARAN TO THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL-SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

¶73

Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14/12/2022 FROM KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY.

¶74

Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03/05/2013 OF SECRETERY IN CHARGE OF KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY.

¶75

Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF RIGHT OT INFORMATION ACT REPLY DATED 16/12/2022 OF MARADU MUNCIPALITY.

¶76

Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/01/2018 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶77

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶78

¶79

Exhibit P-12	TRUE COPY LETTER DATED 18/02/2022 NAGARAKARIYA DIRECTOR.	OF THE
Exhibit P-13	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/12/2	022 OF
	THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY ADDRESS	ED TO
	SUKUMARAN, AN RIGHT TO INFO ACTIVIST .	RMATION
Exhibit P-14	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03/01/2 THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO ACTIVIST SUKU	023 OF MARAN.
Exhibit P-15	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ISO/MOH3/2069	1/2020,
	DATED 08/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI.	HEALTH
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER	NO.
	ISO/MOH3/20691/2020,16443/09 11.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADD SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION.	DATED ITIONAL
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE RRI APPLICATION SU BY ONE MR. SUKUMARAN DATED 27. SEEKING THE INFORMATION WITH RESP REGULARIZATION OF CRL WORKERS.	BMITTED 04.2023 ECT TO
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY MOH3/015275/2023 DATED 18.05.2023 BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.	NO. ISSUED IN THE
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISO/MOH3/20	691/20,
	16443/09 DATED 10.12.2021 ISSUED 5TH RESPONDENT.	BY THE
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISO/MOH3/PIO/033743/2023 DATED 27. ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFO OFFICER/SUPERINTENDENT, HEALTH DEPA KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.	NO. 11.2023 RMATION RTMENT,
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER	NO.
	ISO/MOH3/20691/20, 16443/09	DATED
	10.12.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶80

WP(C) NO. 3346 OF 2023

¶81

¶82

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶83

Exhibit R1(b)

¶84

True Copy of the Government Order GO (Ms) No. 91/2001/LSGD dated 29.03.2001 with its typed copy

¶85

Exhibit R1(a)

¶86

True Copy of the Government Order GO (Ms) No. 14/82/LBR dated 22.04.1982 with its typed copy

Akhil Dev v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Akhil Dev v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hareesh Mukund Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar .C, Vs the Chairman & Managing Director.

K. Kalikkutty Vs State of Kerala

V.Muraleedharan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom

K.M.Cherian Vs Thodupuzha Taluk Co-Operative Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.I-112

K a Shamla Vs State of Kerala