ABDUL BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Excepting O. P. No. 14673 of 2003 and W. P. C. No. 24105 of 2004, rest of the cases had been jointly heard and taken up for judgment. The learned Government Pleader had submitted that the said two connected cases also may be listed, which could be jointly disposed of in the nature of the contentions that had been raised in them.

(2.) When these cases were listed, learned counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 14673 of 2003 and W. P. (C) No. 24105 of 2004 had submitted that they adopt the arguments which had been made in the batch cases. Hence all of them are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) Earliest of the cases filed was O. P. No. 14673 of 2003. The petitioner in the said case had been allotted the work of "working down timber and firewood" in a Teak Plantation in Nilambur Division under the Forest Department, during August, 2002 as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P4. He claims that strictly in compliance with the ruling directions, he had finished the work within the stipulated period. At the time when he was entrusted with the job, the work orders indicated the rates and the estimate of work cost in respect of the work, as per Ext. P1, which was Rs. 16,93,000/-. In respect of the work covered by Ext. P2, the estimate was Rs. 13,63,500/-. The respective estimated amount of work orders in respect of Exts.P3 and P4 were Rs. 12,03,000/- and Rs. 7,54,000/-. The case put forward was that before the work commenced, by virtue of Government Order dated 21.5.2002, the minimum wages payable to the workers employed in the Forest Department in the State stood revised. He had been informed by Exts.P6 to P9 that the estimated amounts had been revised. Thereby the respective amounts of estimates were shown as Rs. 15,81,000/-; Rs. 21,63,500/-; Rs. 20,87,500/- and Rs. 10,74,000/-. These communications issued by the Forest Range Officer, Nilambur Range (4th respondent) are dated 20.9.2002. The petitioner submits that on the basis of the above, he had been paying "his workers" strictly in accordance with Ext. P5 Government Order and the payments were made in the presence of the 4th respondent. But, he was advised by the 4th respondent, by Exts.P10 to P13 in December 2002, that according to the instructions he had received, the revised rates could not be granted. Requests made by the petitioner did not bear fruits and he contends that normal payments due and payable to him stand withheld. The Original Petition is accordingly filed for getting his claims upheld. The petitioner's claims could be summarised, as found in Ground D, as following: