STATE OF KERALA Vs. K. SADANANDAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in the O.A.(EKM) No. 1279 of 2015 is the petitioner before this Court. The challenge is against Ext.P4 order, whereby the O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal for reckoning the period from 03.08.1992 till the date of regularisation effected by the Government as qualifying service for granting the pensionary benefits.

(2.) Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, who appears for the first respondent.

(3.) The sum and substance of the case projected before this Court is that the first respondent herein was serving as a Driver Gr.II , who was initially sponsored by the Divisional Employment Exchange Officer of the Divisional Employment Exchange, Thiruvananthapuram in the office of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, pursuant to which, he reported for duty on that day, i.e., on 03.08.1992. Admittedly, there was no cessation of service and he was continuing to discharge the duty as a Driver for quite long. Later, referring to the various rulings rendered by this Court as well as the Apex Court and also seeking for regularisation, the first respondent herein approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. 996 of 2013, wherein interference was declined and the O.A. came to be dismissed, which was subjected to challenge by filing O.P(KAT) No. 3650 of 2013 before this Court. After hearing both the sides, a Division Bench of this Court, as per Annexure A2 verdict dated 09.03.2015 observed that the petitioner therein was entitled to have some benefits by virtue of the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority, (1990 (2) KLT 673) and also by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 to the extent such relief is to be moulded and given to the parties concerned. It was accordingly, the Bench observed that the petitioner was eligible to be regularised in service at the earliest, so that he would be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour, at least in the matter of retrial benefits by counting the length of service in terms of the said judgment.