Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner joined the service of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for brevity) w.e.f. 1992 onwards as an Empanelled Driver. In course of time, the petitioner has been continued in service beyond ten years. Nevertheless, in spite of Exhibit P2 Government Order, his services have not been regularised by the respondent Corporation on the premise that he did not complete 120 duties annually during the said ten years. Thus, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Corporation in regularising his services, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner completed ten years as on 22.12.2011 in terms of the details supplied by the petitioner in Exhibits P1A and P1B. The learned counsel has contended that the stipulation of 120 duties a year came to be incorporated only in 2013, after much litigation before this Court. Since it has prospective application, contends the learned counsel, the respondent authorities ought not to have denied the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to issue a positive direction to the respondent authorities to regularise the petitioner's services with effect from 22.12.2011.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on verification of Exhibits P1A and P1B, has submitted that the petitioner did complete ten years by 22.12.2011. At any rate, the learned Standing Counsel has further contended that though 120 duties a year in respect of temporary employees has become part of Exhibit P2 order through subsequent amendment, it relates back to the original date of Exhibit P2, and as such, the benefit of regularisation cannot be extended without the petitioner establishing that he had 120 duties annually in those ten years.
5. Having regard to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the issue has already been decided by this Court on more than one occasion by conclusively holding that the stipulation of 120 duties a year has prospective effect from 2013.
6. Recently, this Court, through its judgment dated 28.11.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 30691/2014, made it clear that the objection of the respondent corporation that the regularisation of those who represented after 21.11.2013, when the so-called clarificatory Government order was issued, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, in my considered view, the said objection cannot be sustained and there shall be a direction to the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner forthwith in terms of Exhibit P2. It is made clear that the first respondent shall complete the entire exercise of regularising the services of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-