Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the first petitioner joined the service of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for brevity) in 1999 and the second and third petitioners in 1997 as Empanelled Drivers. In course of time, the petitioners have been continued in service beyond ten years. Nevertheless, in spite of Exhibit P2 Government Order, their services have not been regularised by the respondent Corporation on the premise that they did not complete 120 duties annually during the said ten years. Thus, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Corporation in regularising their services, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners completed ten years as on 22.12.2011 in terms of the details supplied by the petitioners in Exhibits P1E, P1F and P1G. The learned counsel has contended that the stipulation of 120 duties a year came to be incorporated only in 2013, after much litigation before this Court. Since it has prospective application, contends the learned counsel, the respondent authorities ought not to have denied the request of the petitioners for regularization of their service. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to issue a positive direction to the respondent authorities to regularise the petitioners' services with effect from 22.12.2011.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on verification of Exhibits P1E, P1F and P1G, has submitted that the petitioners did complete ten years by 22.12.2011. At any rate, the learned Standing Counsel has further contended that though 120 duties a year in respect of temporary employees has become part of Exhibit P2 order through subsequent amendment, it relates back to the original date of Exhibit P2, and as such, the benefit of regularisation cannot be extended without the petitioners establishing that they had 120 duties annually in those ten years.
5. Having regard to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the issue has already been decided by this Court on more than one occasion by conclusively holding that the stipulation of 120 duties a year has prospective effect from 2013.
6. Recently, this Court, through its judgment dated 28.11.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 30691/2014, made it clear that the objection of the respondent corporation that the regularisation of those who represented after 21.11.2013, when the so-called clarificatory Government order was issued, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, in my considered view, the said objection cannot be sustained and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners forthwith in terms of Exhibit P2. It is made clear that the first respondent shall complete the entire exercise of regularising the services of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE