K.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the respondent authority. The appellants based their claims on Ext.P1 by which the benefits available to certain employees of the respondent authority by Ext.P2 was extended to them. The issue related to the regularization of certain employees who were working earlier in the Public Health Engineering Department, whose services were transferred to the Kerala Water and Waste Water Authority, after the abolition of the former and the constitution of the later. The applicants in Ext.P2, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were all appointed through the Employment Exchange between 1981 and 1988. They apprehended that their services will be terminated since they were initially appointed by the Employment Exchange and continued in employment by notification dated 30.7.1988 The appointment to the respondent authority was mandatorily to be in consultation with the Kerala Public Service Commission. Looking at the terms of Constitution of the authority and the resolution passed, recommending the regularization of the service of the employees recruited to the Public Health Engineering Department and still working in the Water authority dated 30.1.1987, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that though KS&SSR was adopted by a resolution, such adoption does not make such rules statutory as far as the Authority was concerned and would have only the force of administrative rules. Since the employees who were before the Supreme Court had been continued in employment for a very long period, it was held that their services have to be regularized. For this, the Authority did not require any sanction from the Government, was the finding.

(2.) THE appellants claimed to be similarly situated before this court earlier; wherein a learned Single Judge passed Ext.P1 judgment which held thus:-

(3.) LOOKING at the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1, we notice that they harp on the contention that the appellants are not covered by Ext.P2 judgment of the Supreme Court. We are not called upon to decide the said issues that stands settled in favour of the appellant by Ext.P1 judgment. We are also not sitting in appeal from Ext.P1 judgment which has been confirmed inter parties, by dismissal of a writ appeal and an SLP. In such circumstances we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment and we set aside the same allowing the writ petition. Ext.P9 in so far as it denies the benefits to the appellants as directed by Ext.P1 judgment, which specifically confers eligibility on the appellants to the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment; shall stand set aside. We make it clear that even by Ext.P2 judgment for subsequent promotions the employees have to be qualified and to that extent Clause 5 in Ext.P9 is unassailable. We allow the writ appeal setting aside the impugned judgment. Parties to suffer their respective costs.