Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 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 petitioner, an Empanelled Conductor, claiming to have completed more than ten years of service by 22.12.2011 in terms of Ext.P2 Government Order, submitted Ext.P3 representation to the respondent Corporation to have his case considered for regularization. Complaining of its non disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue of regularization on completion of ten years of service by the Empanelled Conductors or drivers has come up for W.P(. C)No.27253 OF 2014 : 2 :
consideration before this Court, and time and again this Court upheld the claim of the workmen for regularization. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court as reported in Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KLT 258].
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has, however, submitted that there is any amount of dispute with regard to whether the petitioner has actually completed ten years of service in the light of the subsequent clarifications and also amendments effected to Ext.P12. In any event, the learned Standing Counsel has agreed that the respondent authorities would be more than willing to consider Ext.P3 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation this Court, without entering into the merits of the matter, directs W.P(. C)No.27253 OF 2014 : 3 :
the respondent Corporation to consider Ext.P3 representation of the petitioner, especially, in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KLT 258] and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE