This is the 3rd round of litigation in which the petitioner is approaching this Court with respect to denial of regularisation in service. The petitioner is working as 'empaneled conductor' in the 2nd respondent Corporation, on provisional/daily wage basis, sine the year 2000 onwards. He claims benefit of Ext.P3 Government Order through which the 2nd respondent Corporation was permitted to regularise those provisional employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 21.12.2011. When his request was not considered by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 51/2013. This Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider his claim and to take an appropriate decision. In Ext.P6 the 2nd respondent had rejected the request for regularisation stating that the petitioner had completed only 9 years with 120 duties per year, as per the recommendations submitted from the unit W.P.(C) No. 22630 /2014 2 office concerned. Since the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service with 120 duties, he was found not eligible. Challenging Ext.P6, the petitioner had approached this Court again in a writ petition.
2. In Ext.P7 judgment, this Court found that the insistence for completion of 120 duties during all the years cannot be sustained, in view of the decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KLT 258]. Hence Ext.P6 was quashed and the 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the matter and to regularise the petitioner in case he fulfills the criteria stipulated in Ext.P3 Government Order, with respect to completion of 10 years as on 21.12.2011. But the 2nd respondent again rejected the claim through Ext.P8 stating that the Government have clarified through G.O.(MS) No.105/2013/TRANS dated 21.11.2013 that no regularisation shall be given if there is no completion of 120 duties per year. In Ext.P8 it was again found that petitioner is not eligible since he had completed only 9 years of service with 120 duties. It is challenging Ext.P8, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. In Ext.P3 Government Order, the 2nd respondent Corporation was permitted to regularise provisional employees W.P.(C) No. 22630 /2014 3 who have completed 10 years of service as on 21.12.2011. The said order was issued on the basis of a proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent seeking permission to regularise those employees who have completed 8 years of service with 120 duties per year. But while issuing Ext.P3, the Government have not insisted upon completion of 120 duties, instead it was stipulated that the regularisation can be given only to those who have completed 10 years. Therefore, in Suresh Kumar's Case (cited Supra) this Court held that the insistence of 120 duties during all the years cannot be sustained. The view taken in Suresh Kumar's Case was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No. 763/2013 dated 28.05.2013. Subsequently, the Government have issued G.O.(MS) No. 105/2013, dated 21.11.2013 clarifying that the eligibility criteria to be verified at the time of regularisation will include completion of 120 duties per year. The said Government Order was subjected to challenge before this Court in a batch of review petitions which were disposed of on 17.01.2014 (R.P. No. 1031/2013 in W.P.(C) No. 5113/2013 and connected cases).
4. This court found that the said Government Order, which is issued subsequently incorporating an additional eligibility W.P.(C) No. 22630 /2014 4 criteria for the purpose of regularisation, cannot be given prospectivity and will not apply to cases of regularisation of candidates who have completed 10 years of service as on the date of Ext.P3. The above said order was subjected to hallenge in writ appeals filed by the 2nd respondent corporation. A Division Bench of this court through the judgment in W.A. No. 339/2014 and connected cases (dated 12.03.2014) upheld the view that G.O.(MS) No. 105/2011 cannot have any retrospectivity.
5. Therefore it is evident that the reason for rejecting the claim for regularisation based on non-completion of 120 duties per year cannot be sustained. The petitioner had produced Ext.P2 'Attendance details' with respect to the provisional service which is issued by the unit officer concerned. He had also produced Ext.P5 proforma issued from the unit office furnishing particulars regarding his provisional service. Both the above documents will clearly reveal that the petitioner had provisional service from December 2000 onwards and that he had completed 10 years as on December 2011, excluding the years 2008 and 2009 during when he was discharged from the provisional engagement. Therefore it is evident that the W.P.(C) No. 22630 /2014 5 petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria of completion of 10 years of service as on 21.12.2011. Hence it is found that the petitioner is eligible to be regularised in the service of the respondent Corporation.
6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P8 is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue necessary orders regularising the petitioner in the service of the Corporation, with effect from the date of Ext.P3 order.
7. Necessary proceedings in this regard shall be issued at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-