K.N.SADANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are challenging Ext.P4 order through which their claim for regularisation in the service of the second respondent Corporation was rejected. The petitioners are provisional employees working in the Corporation. They claimed regularisation on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order, since they fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria of completion of ten years of service as on 21.12.2011. When their requests for regularisation were not considered, the petitioners along with certain others have approached this Court in an earlier writ petition. In Ext.P3 judgment this Court directed the second respondent to consider their representations and to take appropriate decisions. In Ext.P4 the request was declined stating that petitioners 1 and 2 have completed only nine years of service with 120 duties per year and the third petitioner had completed only 8 years of service with 120 duties per year. According to the petitioners, insistence for 120 duties in every year is unsustainable. It is contended that all of them have completed 10 years of provisional service as on 21.12.2011. Hence the reasoning mentioned in Ext.P4 for rejecting their claim is unsustainable, is the contention.

(2.) THIS Court in the decision in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KLT 258) held that the Corporation cannot insist that the employees should have performed a minimum of 120 duties in an year, for all the ten years because Ext.P1 Government order does not stipulate any such condition. It is held that if the provisional employees have completed 10 years of service as on 21.12.2011 they are eligible to be regularised. The above view has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A.No.763 of 2013, dated 28.5.2013.