The petitioner is an empanelled Conductor working in the 1st respondent Corporation from 2000 onwards. He claims regularisation in the service of the Corporation on the basis of Ext.P3 Government order. According to the petitioner, he fulfills the eligibility criteria stipulated in Ext.P3, having completed 10 years of service as on 21-12- 2011. It is admitted that the petitioner was disengaged from duty with effect from 15-02-2008. But he was re-admitted on 29-09-2011. Since the petitioner is continuing from 29-09-2011 onwards and since he is in the service as on the date of Ext.P3, it is contended that the petitioner is eligible to be regularised, having completed 10 years of service as on 21-12-2011. The petitioner is approaching this court since his request was not considered.
2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is contended that the petitioner has not W.P.(c) No.27595/2013 -2- completed 10 years of service with 120 duties duties on every year. It remains settled through decision of this court in Suresh Kumar V. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KLT
258) which was upheld by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.763/2013 dated 28-05-2013, that insistence for completion of 120 duties on every year is not in accordance with the terms of Ext.P3 and regularisation cannot be denied on such basis. It is also held in various decisions of this court that merely because the provisional employee was not in the service as on the date of Ext.P3, regularisation cannot be denied. But in the case at hand the petitioner was continuing in service as on the date of Ext.P3 order. Therefore it is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner is eligible to be regularised since he fulfills all the criteria stipulated in Ext.P3 Government order.
3. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that going by the records available with the Corporation, the petitioner had completed 55 years as on the date of Ext.P3 Government order. But learned W.P.(c) No.27595/2013 -3- counsel for the petitioner had produced copy of the extract of Birth Register which will indicate that the petitioner will attain the age of 55 years only in the year 2017. However, it is left open to the respondents to verify such records at the time when the order of appointment is issued on the basis of regularisation.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to issue necessary orders regularising the petitioner in the service of the 1st respondent Corporation, if necessary after calling for production of proof regarding the date of birth. Orders in this regard shall be issued at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge