P.SUNDARAN Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT .

(2.) PETITIONERS were engaged by the first respondent (the Kerala Water Authority) as CLR workers from 1986. They claim that in view of Ext.P1, order dated 05.01.1991 they were entitled to be regularised from 1988 onwards. In Civil Appeal No.1 of 2008, the Supreme Court directed the first respondent to regularise the CLR workers but the name of petitioners were omitted by the first respondent. The 4th respondent (State Government) asked the first respondent whether petitioners could be absorbed. Petitioners say that the first respondent by Ext.P4, recommended the same but, that was not approved by the Government. Ext.P8, order is under challenge. There is also a prayer to direct the respondents to absorb petitioners into the NMR service with effect from 1988 and regularise them as per relevant orders with all consequential benefits.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has contended that petitioners are not entitled to claim regularisation at this belated stage. It is contended that the petitioners 2 to 4 retired even before Ext.P8, order dated 20.05.2008 and hence they cannot claim the benefit of the said order and Exts.P9 and P10, judgments. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent has contended that petitioners are late in approaching this Court and hence the principle of sit back theory enunciated in Pavithran Vs. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 20) would apply.