The petitioners were engaged as casual labourers (CLR) workers in the 2nd respondent Corporation, since the year 1989 onwards. They sought regularisation in the service of the Corporation as 'Garage Mazdoor'. When their claims were not considered, they have approached this court in an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of through Ext.P9 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to consider their representation in accordance with law in the light of orders passed with respect to similarly situated persons, within two months of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. Ext.P10 is the consequential order issued rejecting their claim for absorption in the regular service. It is stated that the petitioners were engaged purely on temporary basis without any intention of absorbing them into the regular establishment. Therefore the Corporation has not maintained any records with respect to their W.P.(C). No. 7279 of 2014 -2-
engagement as local coolies. According to the 2nd respondent the case of the petitioners is totally different from that of casual labourers working at the workshop at Thiruvananthapuram Central, who were absorbed on completion of 15 years of service. It is also mentioned that the 2nd respondent Corporation is facing acute financial crisis and therefore regularisation of the petitioners cannot be considered, since it involves heavy financial commitments. Aggrieved by the decision taken in Ext.P10, the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent in a representation, copy of which is produced as Ext.P11. Since the 1st respondent is not considering the request, this writ petition is filed.
3. It is evident that the 2nd respondent Corporation had declined the request for regularisation for various reasons as mentioned above. Whether the request of the petitioners need to be reconsidered and as to whether the 2nd respondent is to be issued with any direction to the effect of regularising the petitioners, are matters which need to be considered on the basis of the policy decision W.P.(C). No. 7279 of 2014 -3-
of the Government. Since this court is of the considered opinion that there is no right vested on the petitioners to claim regularisation, it is not possible to issue any positive direction. However, it will be left open to the 1st respondent to consider the representation and to take an appropriate decision.
3. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of, without expressing anything on the merits of the issue, directing the 1st respondent to take an appropriate decision based on Ext.P11 representation, at the earliest, if necessary after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. A decision in this regard shall be taken, at any rate, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pn