A MUHAMMED RASHEED Vs. MUNICIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was suspended while in service working as U.D. Clerk. Later on, his suspension was revoked. According to the petitioner, he was under suspension from 18-10-1997 to 10-3-1998. He joined duty on reinstatement on 11-3-1998. He approached this Court by filing O.P.No.16875/1999 for a direction to consider his appeal with regard to the regularisation of his period of suspension in which this Court directed consideration of that appeal. Pursuant to that judgment, Ext. P6 order has been passed by the Government wherein the Government had regularised his service as duty for the period from 19-8-1997 to 17-10-1997. However, the period from 18- 10-1997 to 10-3-1998 was not regularised for the reason that on 17- 10-1997, the petitioner was served with an order directing him to join at Thrissur Municipality which he did not comply with. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 order to the extent it denies him the benefit of regularisation for the period from 18-10-1997 to 10-3-1998. According to him, he never received any order posting him to Thrissur Municipality. What he received was an order directing him to join duty at Nedumangad Municipality which he promptly complied with. The petitioner would therefore submit that the order to the extent the Government refused to regularise the period of his absence from 18-10-1997 to 10-3-1998 as duty is unsustainable.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Trivandrum Corporation as also the learned Government Pleader. Counsel for the Trivandrum Corporation points out that the petitioner was actually suspended on 11-6-1997 and he was reinstated in service by order dated 18-8-1997 and that he reported for duty on 25-8-1997 and he was given a posting order on 17-10-1997 posting him to Thrissur Municipality. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the argument of the petitioner that he did not receive the order dated 17-10-1997 posting him to Thrissur Municipality is not correct since the petitioner himself had challenged that order in O.P.No. 19205/1997 so as to get a convenient posting in Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had, in fact, filed O.P.No. 19205/1997 challenging the posting order dated 17-10-1997. But, his contention is that he never received that order, but knowing about that order from other sources, he challenged the same with the help of an unauthenticated copy of that order.

(3.) I am unable to accept the said contention. When the petitioner challenged the order dated 17-10-1997 posting him to Thrissur Municipality, that would show that he was perfectly aware of that posting order. That being so, he cannot take refuge under the contention that he did not receive the order. There would be constructive knowledge of that order since he himself had challenged that order in proceedings before this Court. That being so, I do not find any infirmity in Ext. P6 order and accordingly the original petition is dismissed.