The petitioners are said to have been working since 2003 as daily wage mechanical staff in the respondent Corporation. Contending that in terms of Exhibit P2, on completion of eight years of service, their services ought to have been regularised, the petitioners submitted Exhibit P3 representation to the first respondent. Complaining of its non consideration, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court to Exhibit P2, especially to clause (3) thereof.
3. A perusal of clause (3) of Exhibit P2 makes it clear that the proposal concerning provisional employees on the roles of the Corporation such as Conductor, Driver, Mechanic, including empanelled employees who have completed eight years or more service as on 28.02.2011 and who have worked at least 120 days WPC 29153/14 2 in each year, will be submitted to the Government for consideration of regularisation. Exhibit P3, however, reveals that the petitioners petitioned the second respondent Corporation to regularise their services, which according to the learned Standing Counsel, is in the hands of the Government.
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 adverting to the merits of the matter, directs the respondent Corporation to forward the proposal concerning regularisation of the petitioners in terms of Exhibit P2 to the second respondent, if it is otherwise permissible. In such an eventuality of having the proposal received from the respondent Corporation, the second respondent is at liberty to take appropriate decision in that regard.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv