K. M. Joseph, J. Respondents 1 and 3 in T.A. No.4324/12 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondent is the applicant in T.A. The applicant contended that he was an HR (Hand receipt) worker under the 3rd petitioner. The Government had issued order G.O.(P) No. 6/90/PW & T dated 20/01/1990. As per the said order, CLR workers, who are in service on or before 19/5/1983 and are having 500 days of service as on 1 - 4 -1987 will be appointed directly to the vacancies in regular service created for appointment of NMR workers to the extent of vacancies available. CLR workers appointed on or before 19/5/1983 and who have not completed 500 days of service as CLR workers as on 1-4-1987 are eligible for absorption as SLR workers. The 2nd petitioner had recommended for regularisation of the applicant before the Tribunal. The first petitioner regularised the applicant as SLR with effect from 16/4/2010 on the strength of Ext.P9. It is the same which was challenged.
2. The Tribunal has disposed of the T.A. holding that the applicant has not completed 500 days of service as on 1- 4-1987 and that he has not produced any material to show that he had 500 days of service as on 1-4-1987. Then the Tribunal proceeded to pose the question as to whether the applicant is entitled to get retrospective effect to his regularisation as SLR worker. Thereafter the Tribunal answered the same as follows:
“Since the applicant was similarly placed like the persons covered by Ext.P7, he is also entitled to get regularisation with effect from the date of that order (18/7/2002). It is accordingly declared. Ext.P9 order will stand modified to the above extent. The consequential benefits arising out of this declaration shall be granted to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. “
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before us.
We have heard the learned Government Pleader. He would submit that the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant is similarly placed person like the persons covered by Ext.P7 is incorrect. it is for the applicant to prove the identity of the worker named Gopakumar and P.R.Gopakumar as one and the same person. Secondly, it is pointed out that in the portion of the order which we have extracted, it is ordered that the applicant is also entitled to get regularisation with effect from the date of that order i.e.18/7/2002. The Government Pleader would further submit that the said order includes NMR workers. The applicant is not entitled to get regularisation as NMR worker.
4. We see no merit at all in the contention of the petitioners. As far as the dispute as to whether the respondent has proved his case, we would think that it is not open to the petitioners to raise such contention before this Court. It is a case where there was a dispute, which engaged the attention of the Government. That is why the matter was delayed and finally the case was recommended by the Department and culminated in Ext.P9 order. As regards the benefit of the Government Order and regularising the applicant as SLR worker, he was given the benefit only from the date of the order. Therefore, in view of the fact that it is a judicial review proceedings, it is not open to the petitioners to raise that question having regard to Ext.P9. Consequently, as far as the contention about the last paragraph of the order which we have already quoted, the Tribunal specifically posed the question as to whether the applicant is entitled to be regularised as SLR worker with retrospective effect. It is only thereafter, the Tribunal took its view. We see no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE dpk.
/True copy/ P.S. to Judge.