P N SIVASANKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were appointed provisionally as Peon and Cook respectively in the Corporation of Cochin through the Employment Exchange. On attaining the age of superannuation, they were relieved from service on 31.03.2003. The petitioners submit that they have been appointed after undergoing a selection process through employment exchange and they have put in 22 years of service. Consequently they are eligible for regularisation in service and retirement benefits is their claim. They cite an instance of identically placed other employees of the Corporation, which was considered by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in O.P. No.11018/1993, based on which the Government has granted regularisation in service and consequent benefits to such identically placed employees by Ext.P6 order. The petitioners submit that they are also entitled to the same benefit. The petitioners seek the following reliefs:

(2.) THE 3rd respondent, Secretary of the Corporation of Cochin has not chosen to file any counter affidavit to controvert the averments in the writ petition. Therefore, I am inclined to assume that the averments in the writ petition are true and correct.

(3.) THE petitioners have stated in the writ petition that they were first employed in 1981 through employment exchange. The 3rd respondent has not chosen to controvert the said fact. Therefore, the petitioners have put in 22 years of service till their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Of course, the learned Government Pleader would take the stand that they did not retire but their services were terminated by the Corporation. But in the writ petition the petitioners have specifically stated that the petitioners retired on superannuation on 31.3.2003 and the 3rd respondent has not chosen to controvert the same. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were appointed through employment exchange. That means, they have undergone a selection process for such appointment. Therefore, I am of opinion of that the petitioners' claim for regularisation cannot be summarily rejected on the ground that they were only provisional employees, when they have continued in service for 21 years. Even in Umadevi's case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that employees who have continued in service for long years even if their continuation is irregular, regularisation of their services can be granted. Of course the learned Government Pleader points out that in Umadevi's case the Supreme Court has held that the temporary employee who continued in service on the strength of the interim orders of Court is not entitled to regularisation in service. But even according to the 1st respondent, the petitioners obtained the stay orders only in 1997 by which time they had already put in 16 years of service. In fact by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court considered the case of similarly placed employees who had put in 17 years of service. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioners are also eligible for the benefit of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court and Ext.P6 orders passed by the Government pursuant thereto. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their service and all consequential service benefits including retirement benefits. The 1st respondent shall pass orders in implementation of the above declaration, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon the 3rd respondent shall disburse all service benefits due to the petitioners, including retirement benefits, within a period of one month therefrom, with arrears.