P M KUTTAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court claiming regularisation of past service with effect from 1. 4. 1971. The petitioner claims that he had entered service in 1996 as a casual labourer (CLR worker) on temporary service in the Thanneer mukkam Project Division under the third respondent. According to him he had worked continuously thereafter but he was not regularised though persons similarly placed were regularised as per ext. P1 G. O. Subsequently, he has been regularised but, only with effect from 17. 6. 1995. In view of the above he claims regularisation with effect from 1. 4. 1971. He had earlier approached this Court by filing O. P. 5890/95 alleging that his application for regularisation was not considered by the authorities. As per Ext. P2 judgment this Court had directed the State to consider his claim expeditiously. It is pursuant to the said direction that his services have been regularised. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has since retired from service as a Class iv employee.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is contended that the service of the petitioner was not continuous. He had only broken periods of service totalling 865 days. He was eligible for absorption into regular service only with effect from 17. 6. 1995. According to the second respondent, the persons in ext. P1 were workers who had been engaged continuously and it was for the said reason that they were absorbed as SLR workers with effect from 1. 4. 1971. On the basis of the availability of vacancies they were further absorbed as NMR workers. The second respondent has further averred that the criteria adopted for absorption of such persons was, the number of continuous working days put it by a person, the requirement and availability of vacancies, seniority etc. Since the petitioner did not satisfy any of the above criteria, his claim could not be allowed. Therefore, he was regularised only with effect from 17. 6. 1995, which is perfectly in order.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the govt. Pleader.