IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/24TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 26948 of 2014 (P) PETITIONER(S):
K.JAYAKUMAR, EMPANELLED CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S):
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 023.
2. DISTRICT TRANSPROT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 018. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 26948 of 2014 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE FREE PASS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED NIL EXT.P1(A). TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE DETAILS DATED 20/09/2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER DATED 22/12/2011.
EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER DATED 12/6/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26948 of 2014 ----------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner joined the service of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for brevity) on 14.08.1995 as an empanelled driver. In spite of Exhibit P6 Government Order, his services have not been regularised by the respondent Corporation on the premise that he did not complete 120 duties annually during the said period. Thus, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Corporation in not regularising the services of the petitioner, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has completed more than ten years as on 22.12.2011 in terms of the details supplied by the petitioner in Ext.P9. 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 petitioner to have his services regularised. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to issue a positive direction to the respondent authorities to regularise the petitioner's services with effect from 22.12.2011.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on verification of Exhibit P9, has submitted that the petitioner 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 P6 order through subsequent amendment, it relates back to the original date of Exhibit P6, and as such, the benefit of regularisation cannot be extended without the petitioner establishing that he had 120 duties annually in those ten years.
5. Having regard to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 and has conclusively stated that the stipulation of 120 duties a year has prospective effect from 2013.
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 petitioner forthwith in terms of Exhibit P6. It is made clear that the first respondent shall complete the entire exercise of regularising the services of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month 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.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 26948 of 2014 ----------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner joined the service of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for brevity) on 31.05.2000 as an empanelled driver. In spite of Exhibit P2 Government Order, his services have not been regularised by the respondent Corporation on the premise that he did not complete 120 duties annually during the said period. Thus, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Corporation in not regularising the services of the petitioner, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has completed more than ten years as on 22.12.2011 in terms of the details supplied by the petitioner in Ext.P1A. 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 petitioner to regulairse his services. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to issue a positive direction to the respondent authorities to regularise the petitioner's services with effect from 22.12.2011.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on verification of Exhibit P1A, has submitted that the petitioner did complete ten years by 22.12.2011. At any rate, the learned Standing Counsel has further contended that since 120 duties a year in respect of temporary employees has become part of Exhibit P2 order through subsequent amendment, which relates back to the original date of Exhibit P2, and as such, the benefit of regularisation cannot be extended without the petitioner establishing that he had 120 duties annually in those ten years.
5. Having regard to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 and has conclusively stated that the stipulation of 120 duties a year has prospective effect from 2013.
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 petitioner 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 petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month 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.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
dpk