C.R. SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('K.S.R.T.C. for short) depart from the general instructions issued by the State Government relating to the recruitment, conditions of service or training of its employees The common order declining regularisation in service of empanelled employees is impugned in all the Writ Petitions and I shall refer to the parties and exhibits in W.P.(C) No. 8301/2013 for the sake of convenience. The petitioners who have been working for long as empanelled drivers in the K.S.R.T.C. seek regularisation in service on the basis of Ext.P1 order issued by the Transport (A) Department of the State Government. It is discernible therefrom that the K.S.R.T.C. submitted a proposal to the State Government for regularising empanelled employees in its service which however was not accepted in toto. The proposal was that all provisional employees who were in the panel of the K.S.R.T.C. as on 1.9.2008 and have put in eight years of service with a minimum of 120duties an year should be regularised. But the State Government by Ext.Pl order held that those provisional employees who were in the panel of the K.S.R.T.C. as on 21.12.2011 and have put in ten years of service should be regularised. There is nothing to indicate in Ext.Pl order of the State Government that an empanelled employee should have performed a minimum of 120 duties an year for all the ten years in order to claim regularisation in service.

(2.) The sole ground on which the claim of the petitioners for regularisation in service has been turned down by Ext.P3 order of the K.S.R.T.C. is that they have not performed 120 duties an year for all the ten years. Such an insistence is uncalled for since the proposal of 120 duties an year by an empanelled employee made by the K.S.R.T.C. has not been accepted in Ext.P1 order of the State Government. Is the K.S.R.T.C. bound by the order of the State Government as regards regularisation in service and can it discard such instructions are the pertinent questions to be answered. I should bear in mind that the legality of Ext. P1 order of the State Government enabling empanelled employees of the K.S.R.T.C. to be regularised in service has not been questioned and hence does not fall for consideration.

(3.) I heard Mr. K.P. Rajeevan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Rafeek V.K., Advocate on behalf of the State Government and Mr. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, Advocate on behalf of the K.S.R.T.C. in this batch of Writ Petitions.