ANIYAN T. P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition concerns itself with the issue of regularization of the services of the Empanelled Work Assistant on his completion of 10 years service.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation as an unpaid Apprentice Mechanic in 2001. Once he completed his training, he was selected and appointed as Empanelled Work Assistant on 28.10.2002, since when he has been working as Mechanic owing to the change of designation. Having been transferred intermittently to different depots, the petitioner completed 10 years of service by 2011. In terms of Exhibit P5 Government Order, a policy decision was taken to regularize the services of Empanelled Conductors, Drivers, Mechanics, who have put in more than 10 years service as on 22.12.2011. The respondent Corporation, however, through Exhibit P6 added a rider to Exhibit P5 stating that those Empanelled workmen should also have 120 days duty annually in all those 10 years. When certain litigation ensued, the said rider attached to Exhibit P6 was declared to be illegal by this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that at the earliest point of time this Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala [ : 2013(2) KLT 258] declared that the additional condition of 120 days duty annually as was sought to be introduced by Exhibit P6 was effectively interdicted by this Court, thus restoring Exhibit P5 without any modifications of whatever nature. The Writ Appeal and the subsequent revision petition filed thereon were also dismissed by this Court. Under these circumstances, the respondents, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner, have no justification in denying regularization to the petitioner. Eventually, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged this Court to set aside Exhibit P9 and issue a positive direction to the second respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of Exhibit P5.