The petitioner was working as Driver in the 1st respondent Corporation on a provisional basis from the year 1980 onwards, as recruited through employment exchange. He sought regularisation in the service of the 1st respondent Corporation through Ext.P2 representation submitted as early as in the year 1999. When the said representation was not considered, he had approached this court in a writ petition, OP.6785/2000. In Ext.P1 judgment a direction was issued to the 1st respondent Corporation to consider and to pass appropriate orders on the request for regularisation. According to the petitioner, despite Ext.P1 judgment issued as early as in March 2000, the Corporation had failed to comply with the direction. In the meanwhile by virtue of Ext.P3, 699 conductors working on provisional basis were regularised. But the petitioners name was not included in the said list. In the year 2007 the petitioner submitted a request under the Right to Information Act seeking information with respect to disposal of Ext.P2 representation. The Corporation had issued Ext.P5 Memorandum in which it is mentioned that the order passed on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment is not forthcoming at this distance of time. However, the Corporation had considered the request once again and rejected the same observing that the engagement of the petitioner was only on a purely provisional basis subject to conditions under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. Since the recruitment of employees of the Corporation is brought under the purview of the PSC, it was found irregular to regularise candidates selected through employment exchange. It was also observed that Ext.P3 order regularising certain candidates were issued considering the short length of service and the said order cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. 2. Admittedly the petitioner had retired from service on attaining superannuation. It is true that the request for regularisation was not considered within any reasonable time, despite specific direction issued by this court. But the petitioner was not vigilant in pursuing the remedy, despite Ext.P1 judgment issued as early as in the year 2000. He had initiated further action only in the year 2007. Eventhough this court had noticed that the Corporation had regularised various provisional employees by virtue of subsequent orders issued in the year 2011 also, it is not possible to direct consideration of the claim for regularisation at this point of time, because the petitioner had already attained superannuation.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances no relief can be granted with respect to the claim for regularisation raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Hence the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
4. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority seeking benefits of ex-gratia payment under the scheme formulated in this regard, if he is legally entitled.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/