High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions allowed; Government Orders impug...
Hameshdas K.H. and others v. State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).9892/2020
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2021-03-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- I order these writ petitions and set aside the Government Orders impugned; and consequentially, direct the Thrissur Corporation to evaluate the credentials of all persons presently on their DLR Roll, including those in the original 310 DLR Workers list, and to prepare a list of all eligible candidates for regularization as CLR workers, subject to the criteria of being sponsored by the Employment Exchange or being appointed through a valid process. Those who, after verification, are found to have been appointed through a process known to law but are above the age of fifty must be given consideration under the Umadevi framework with explicit remarks. The Thrissur Corporation shall forward the list, along with their proposal, to the Director of Urban Affairs, who shall then transmit it to the Government for concurrence after proper verification. The Government shall pass appropriate orders within four months for the list, and the Director of Urban Affairs shall complete processing within two months; the entire process to be completed within a total of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The directions apply to petitioners herein and those included in the 310 DLR Workers list, but do not extend to new appointments beyond the established Employment Exchange sponsorship requirement.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions allowed; Government Orders impugned set aside; Thrissur Corporation directed to evaluate 310 DLR workers for CLR regularization per defined criteria and timelines; Director of Urban Affairs to verify and forward to Government for concurrence; future appointments to adhere to Employment Exchange sponsorship.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Hameshdas K.H.
- Shaju T.M.
- Jaya L.J.
- Prema K.C.
- Mini Babu
- Moni K.K.
- Radha A.
- Renadev P.K.
Respondents
- The State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Secretary to Government, Department of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Municipal Corporation of Thrissur, Office of Corporation of Thrissur, Municipal Office Road, Thrissur
- The Secretary, The Municipal Corporation of Thrissur, Office of the Corporation of Thrissur, Municipal Office Road, Thrissur
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Manu Ramachandran
- • M. Kiranlal
- • G. Krishnakumar
- • A. Haroon Rasheed
- • C.R.Rekesh Sharma
- • T.B. Mini
- • Ajeesh K. Sasi
- • M. Revikrishnan
- • P.M. Rafiq
- • V.C. Sarath
- • Vipin Narayan
- • Pooja Pankaj Sruthy N. Bhat
- • Abel Tom Benny
- • Kiran Antony
- • Smt. T.B.Mini
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - Government Pleader
- • Santhosh P. Poduval - Senior Counsel for Thrissur Corporation
Case Synopsis & Summary
These writ petitions, heard together, challenge government orders denying regularization of Daily Labour Roll (DLR) workers of the Thrissur Corporation. Petitioners, recruited into service over a decade ago via a valid selection process, allege they were never considered for regularization despite long service. They point to Government Orders on absorption of DLR workers as Casual Labour Roll (CLR) personnel, which require sponsorship by the Employment Exchange, and contend that their cases warrant special consideration given prolonged and uninterrupted service. The petitioners highlight that the Kochi Corporation regularized a large number of similar workers, and Thrissur had prepared a list of 310 DLR workers and forwarded it to the Government for regularization; however, the request was rejected. They rely on Supreme Court precedents such as Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, and the Umadevi line of cases, arguing that regularization cannot be denied when proper selection processes were followed and where equal justice demands consideration. The court, while acknowledging the need to follow government orders and age-related limits, rules that the 310 DLR list must be evaluated in full, and those appointees who were recruited through a valid process should be considered for CLR regularization, even if over fifty, with appropriate notes. It directs the Thrissur Corporation to complete a credential review within four months, forward to the Director of Urban Affairs within two months, and obtain government concurrence within two months thereafter. The directions apply to petitioners and those in the 310 list, with future appointments continuing to adhere to Employment Exchange sponsorship requirements.
Provisions of Law Cited
G.O.(Ms) 14/82/LBR dated 22-04-1982G.O.(Ms) 91/2001/LSGD dated 29-03-2001
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Umadevi v. State of Karnataka (Supra) doctrine on regularization
- Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India & Others
- Piara Singh v. State of Haryana
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend they were recruited through valid selection processes as DLR workers over a decade ago and were not regularized despite assurances and government orders permitting regularization via CLR, subject to sponsorship by the Employment Exchange and available vacancies. They urge that, following Kochi Corporation’s example and relying on Umadevi, Katakkar, and Piara Singh, those with legitimate recruitment should not be barred from regularization solely on age or formal sponsorship when proper procedures were in place. They request the court to set aside impugned government orders and direct the Thrissur Corporation to evaluate all 310 DLR workers for CLR regularization, including those who have crossed fifty years if they were initially appointed through a lawful process, with appropriate caveats.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents emphasize adherence to government orders that limit regularization to those sponsored by the Employment Exchange, noting there are only 87 vacancies presently available and that age restrictions (50 years) apply. They urge the Court to ensure that regularization be conducted strictly in line with the extant GO provisions and the Employment Exchange sponsorship principle, and to permit a careful verification process to ascertain whether any of the 310 DLR workers were appointed through valid processes, before any list is created for regularization; liberty is sought to verify credentials via reliable methods.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India & Others | (1996) 7 SCC 113 | Positive | Cited to justify that regularization may be permissible where recruitment followed a valid process, and to emphasize due process and fairness. |
| State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others | (1992) 4 SCC 118 | Positive | Used to support the principle that regularization is possible when the recruitment process is legitimate. |
| Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka | (2006) 4 SCC 1 | Positive | Cited for the Umadevi doctrine and its emphasis on preventing regularization of illegal appointments, while recognizing that those recruited through valid processes may be considered. |
| TIWARI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND | Not provided | Mentioned Only | Exhibited in the record but not a central reasoning basis in the judgment. |
| W.P.C. No. 24345/2018 (and connected) | Not provided | Mentioned Only | Exhibited as part of the record; used to illustrate related orders/judgments. Not a core Analytical reference in the reasoning. |
| Common Judgment in W.P(C) No. 31893/2018 and W.P.C No. 24345/2018 | Not provided | Mentioned Only | Referenced in Appendix exhibits; not central to the reasoning in the present judgment. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Hameshdas K.H. and others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **CR**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.9892 OF 2020(J)**
|**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**|**PETITIONERS**<br>**:**||
|---|---|---|
|**1**||**HAMESHDAS.K.H.**|
|||**AGED 38 YEARS**|
|||**S/O. HARIDAS K.P., KARUTHEDATHU VEEDU,HERBERT NAGAR,**|
|||**NEDUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 007.**|
|**2**||**SHAJU T.M.**|
|||**AGED 44 YEARS**|
|||**S/O. MOHANAN, THAIVALAPPIL VEEDU, KUTTANALLOOR,**|
|||**KAVITHA ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 014.**|
|**3**||**JAYA L.J**|
|||**AGED 55 YEARS**|
|||**W/O. K.S.MURALEEDHARAN, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA (H),**|
|||**AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL LANE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 618.**|
|**4**||**PREMA K.C.**|
|||**AGED 49 YEARS**|
|||**W/O. THANKAPPAN, PULIKKAL (H), THAIKKATTUSSERI (P.O),**|
|||**THEMALIPADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306.**|
|**5**||**MINI BABU**|
|||**AGED 41 YEARS**|
|||**D/O. CHANDRAN, KOTHEDATHU HOSUE, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O.,**|
|||**S.J. COLONY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 631.**|
|**6**||**MONI K.K.**|
|||**AGED 51 YEARS**|
|||**W/O. ASHOKAN, VELUTHEDATHU (H), PULLAZHI P.O., CIVIL**|
|||**LANE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 012.**|
|**7**||**RADHA A.**|
|||**AGED 49 YEARS**|
|||**W/O. JAYAKUMAR P.M., PONNAMBILI (H), POOTHOLE P.O.,**|
|||**THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 004.**|
|**8**||**RENADEV P.K.**|
|||**AGED 56 YEARS**|
|||**S/O. KANDAN KORAN, PATHAARATHU (H), MANNAGATTU LANE,**|
|||**CHANDANA NAGAR, 5TH STREET, ENGINEERING COLLEGE P.O.,**|
|||**THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 009.**|
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 2**
- **9 DINESHAN P.S. AGED 42 YEARS**
- **S/O. SUBRAN, PADIKKALAN (H), PERINGAVU, PERINGAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 018.**
- **10 SUDHARSANAN K.V. AGED 44 YEARS**
- **S/O. VELAYUDAN, KOOTTALA (H), ARANATTUKARA, KIZHAKKEPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 618.**
- **11 VALSALA P.S. AGED 51 YEARS**
- **W/O. PRAKASHAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL (H), PATTALAKUNNU, MANNUTHI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651.**
- **12 UNNIKRISHNAN K.K. AGED 52 YEARS**
- **S/O. KUTTAN, KARALATHU (H), PANAMUKKU, NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 007.**
- **13 OMANA PARAMESHWARAN AGED 54 YEARS**
- **W/O. VELAYUDAN, PORATHUKARAN (H), THAIKKATTUSSERY, NEAR RAILWAY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306.**
- **14 RAJU K.R. AGED 46 YEARS**
- **S/O. RAMANKUTTY K.K., KAPPILAKADU (H), CHITTISSERY P.O., PALIYEKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301.**
- **15 AJITHA T.P. AGED 53 YEARS W/O. VASU, PULICKKAL (H), THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O., THEMALIPADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306.**
- **16 SURAN K.V. AGED 44 YEARS**
- **S/O. VELAYUDAN, KANNATHU (H), PULLAZHI (P.O), OLARI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 012.**
- **17 MADHU K.G. AGED 49 YEARS S/O. GOPI, KADASSERRY (H), A.K.G. LANE, CHAKKAMUKKU, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 002.**
- **18 RAJAN E.P. AGED 47 YEARS**
- **S/O. PERINGANI, EDAKATTIL (H), AYYANTHOLE P.O., PUTHOORKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003.**
- **19 MANIKANDAN K.V. AGED 55 YEARS**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 3**
**S/O. VELLA, KOTTAPADY HOUSE, PANDIKAVU, CHEROOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 008.**
- **20 SULAIMAN AGED 51 YEARS**
**S/O. MUHAMMED, VADAKKETHIL HOSUE, PERINGAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 018.**
- **21 SHEEJU T.U. AGED 43 YEARS**
- **S/O. UNNIMON T.A., THEKKANATHU (H), PATTALAKUNNU, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651.**
- **22 RAMACHANDRAN T.A. AGED 51 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, THAIPPARAMPATHU (H), MULAYAM P.O., AYYAPPANKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 751.**
**BY ADVS.**
**SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
- **2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
- **3 THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THRISSUR OFFICE OF CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
- **4 THE SECRETARY**
**THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, OFFICE OF CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.**
**R3-4 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11315/2020(L), WP(C).12225/2020(C), WP(C).15307/2020(K), WP(C).16564/2020(U), WP(C).25747/2020(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 4**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.11315 OF 2020(L)**
## **PETITIONERS:**
- **1 SANTHOSH P.V AGED 46 YEARS S/O. P S VASU, PAYYAPPAT HOUSE., MANNUTHI, KOZHUKKULLI VILLAGE, 680 651, THRISSUR DISTRICT**
- **2 ANITHA V.J, AGED 57 YEARS C/O. FRANCIS, PAZHALI HOUSE, MANNUTHI, PIN 680 651, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT**
- **3 LISSI VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS C/O. VARGHESE, THEKKINIYATH HOUSE, PANANCHERI VILLAGE, PATTIKKAD P.O, CHEMBOOTHRA, THRISSUR DT**
- **4 LAILA RB, AGED 54 YEARS C/O. HASSAN, KIZHUVALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KACHERI, NADATHARA VILLAGE, EAST FORT P.O, THRISSUR 1**
- **5 RAGINI NAKULAN, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. NAKULAN, PANDARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KACHERI, NADATHARA VILLAGE, EAST FORT P.O, THRISSUR 1**
- **6 ELSI BABU, AGED 54 YEARS W/O. BABU, VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLI VILLAGE, KOZHUKKULLI P.O, 680 751, THRISSUR DISTRICT**
- **7 OMANA RAJAGOPAL, AGED 56 YEARS W/O. RAJAGOPAL, THANJAVOORKKARAN HOUSE, VALARKAV, OLLUR VILLAGE, KURIACHIRA P.O, PIN 680 006, THRISSUR DT**
- **8 JAYA JANARDANAN, AGED 53 YEARS W/O. JANARDHANAN, PALLIMAKKAN HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLI**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 5**
**VILLAGE, KOZHUKKULLI P.O, 680 751, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**
- **9 MAGI N K, AGED 53 YEARS W/O. JOY, CHOORAVAYALIL HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU, OLLUKKARA, EAST FORT P.O, THRISSUR 01**
- **10 OMANA T .J, AGED 58 YEARS C/O. K.P RAPPAYI, KOMBARA HOUSE, MADAMBI LANE, ARANATTUKARA, P.O POOTHOLE PIN 680 004, THRISSUR**
- **11 SHERLI T.F, AGED 41 YEARS W/O. SUDHEER, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTALAKKUNNU, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, P.O MANNUTHI, 680 651 THRISSUR DT**
- **12 GEETHA K.V, AGED 49 YEARS**
- **W/O. MURALI, KUNNAMBATH HOUSE, CATHEREINE ROAD, OLLUKKARA, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, PIN 680 655, THRISSUR DT.**
- **13 JOHNSON CK, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. KUNJUVAREED, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, OLLUKKARA, PATTALAKUNMU LENIN NAGAR, MANNUTHY, PIN 680 651, THRISSUR DT.**
- **14 AMMINI TD, AGED 58 YEARS**
**C/O. KOCHUNNI, KUNNAMBATH HOUSE, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, MANNUTHI P.O, 680 651**
**BY ADVS. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001**
- **2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001**
- **3 THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THRISSUR,**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 6**
**OFFICE OF THRISSUR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 001**
**4 THE SECRETARY, THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR 680001.**
**5 DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAV, OPP. TOWNHALL, PIN 680020, THRISSUR. R3 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9892/2020(J), WP(C).12225/2020(C), WP(C).15307/2020(K), WP(C).16564/2020(U), WP(C).25747/2020(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 7**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.12225 OF 2020(C)**
## **PETITIONERS:**
- **1 M.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MANALATHU HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., ANAPPARA, VILLADOM-680 631.**
- **2 C.R.SURESH AGED 53 YEARS S/O. RAJAN, CHEMBARA HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 027.**
- **3 DINESH N.K. AGED 51 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN, NARAYNATHU HOUSE, VETTUKADU P.O., CHERUKUNNAM-680 014.**
- **4 N.K.RAVI AGED 55 YEARS S/O. KORAN, NEDUMVEETIL HOUSE, ELANTHURUTHU P.O., LALOOR-680 611.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
- **2 THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001.**
- **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 030.**
## **4 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRISSUR-688 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 8**
**R4 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9892/2020(J), WP(C).11315/2020(L), WP(C).15307/2020(K), WP(C).16564/2020(U), WP(C).25747/2020(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 9**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.15307 OF 2020(K)**
## **PETITIONERS:**
- **1 AMMINI T.D WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, THOTTAPPULLI HOUSE, P.O. MANNUTHI OLLOOKRA ZONAL OFFICE, PIN- 680 651, MOB-9562860041.**
- **2 SOBHANA U.N DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,UMMINI VEEDU, MALLIPADAM CHEMBUKAVU THRISSUR P.O PIN-680 005.**
- **3 ANITHA V.J DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, S/O.FRANCIS, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. MANNUTHI, C-1, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680 651. MOBILE 9496373006**
- **4 OMANA T.J DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, COMBARA HOUSE, MADAMBY LANE, PO POOTHOL, PIN-680004 MOBILE 9349956131**
- **5 NALINY M.K DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, KOCHERY VEEDU, MANNAYIPURAK LALOOR P.O. TRICHUR.**
- **6 OMANA M.L DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, THANCHAVOORKARAN HOUSE, VALARKKAVU, KURIYICHIRA P.O., C-1 CIRCLE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680020**
**7 SANTHAKUMARI T.T DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,THALIYAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O., MADAYIKONAM, MAPPRANAM, OLLOOKARA ZONAL OFFICE, PIN680 6511, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680020.**
**8 MADHAVI RAMANKUTTY**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 10**
**DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,CHRUKULANGARA HOUSE C-2, CIRCLE M.B NAGAR KACHERI, KIZHAKKEKOTTA P.O. THRISSUR CORPORATION THRISSUR-680020 MOBILE 9633748787**
- **9 RAGINI NAGULAN DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, (C-2 CIRLCLE) PANDARI PARAMBU HOUSE, M.B NAGAR KACHERI KIZHAKKEKOTTA P.O., THRISSUR CORPORATION THRISSUR-680020.**
- **10 RAJAN K.K DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, S/O.KUNJU K.V., KADUMANPARAMBIL CHITTISSERY, THRISSUR DISTIRCT, KERALA PIN-680 301.**
- **11 P.N.GOPI DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, PEECHAMBILLI HOUSE, VADOOKKARA P.O., ARAVUSALA, THRISSUR-680 662.**
- **12 BINDHU C L DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMPUZHA, P.O VATTAPILANI, THRISSUR-680007**
- **13 M.A.MAJEED DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, EDAMUTTATH HOUSE, ARAVUSALA, ARANATTUKARA, KARYATTUKARA, THRICHUR-680 618.**
- **14 LAILA HASSAN DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, KEEZHVALYPARAMBIL HOUSE, M.B NAGAR, KACHERI, KIZHAKKEKOTTA P.O. THRISSUR-680020.**
- **15 BABY V.V DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, KALLUKARA HOUSE, PULLAZHAY OLARIKKARA, SIVARAMAPURAM COLONY, THRISSUR-680012.**
- **16 LEENA P.C DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, NARAYANAKATTIL HOUSE, PANAMUKKU P.O SHANTHINAGAR, THRISSUR-680007.**
- **17 LEELA DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,D/O.KUNJIVELU, MELEDATH HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O, THRISSUR-680 651.**
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 11**
- **18 C.R.SUMANA**
**DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,W/O.SEBASTIAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE NADATHARA P.O., MINOR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 751.**
**19 K.T SEBASTIAN DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,(5TH CIRCLE), S/O.THOMAS, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADATHRA P.O., MINOR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 751.**
- **20 MUHAMMADUNNI C.M DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,CHANDANATHETHIS HOUSE, HILVADI, MUDIKKODU, KOOTTALA, MOBILE-9645503663. THRISSUR-680 652**
- **21 SUMATHI P M DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, CHEMBOORI HOUSE, NEDUMPUZHA P. O., NEDUMPUZHA, THRISSUR-680 007.**
- **22 MANI N M DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, S/O.MAMAN, ARRATTUPUZHA HOUSE, P O MANNUHY, MULLAKARA, THRISSUR-680 651.**
- **23 MAGGIE N K DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, W/O.JOY, CHOORAVAYALIL HOUSE, NELLIKUNNU KARA, AISHWARYA STREET, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-680 005**
- **24 GEETHA K.V DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, KUNNAMATH HOUSE, KALATHODU KULAM, OLLOOKKARA P.O., MOBILE 77362291.**
**25 ANANDAN K N DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, S/O.NATARAJAN, KAIKOTTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O., EDAKKUNNI, OLLUR TRICHUR-680 306.**
- **26 DEVAKI RAGHU**
**DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, 2ND CIRCLE(JAIHIND MARKET) ANTHIKKADAN HOUSE, CHEMBUKKAVU P.O., C.R.IYYUNNI ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020, MOBILE 9846837107.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 12**
- **27 SHOBHANA CHANDRAN**
**DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, 2ND CIRCLE, VELUTHUKKARAN HOUSE, THRISSUR-680 020, MOBILE 9539207534.**
- **28 VALSALA RAJAN DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, C-2 CIRCLE, W/O.RAJAN M.S., MANNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. CHEMBUKKAVU, KUNDUVARA, THRISSR-680 005. ,MOBILE 9544149303.**
- **29 SARADA KRISHNANKUTTY DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION,(2ND CIRCLE) NEDUMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHEMBUKKAVU, KUNDUVARA, THRISSUR-680005**
- **30 RAJESH C.N DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, OLLOOKKARA ZONAL OFFICE, CHAVATHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O MANNUTHI, PATTALAKUNNU680 651.**
- **31 DEVADAS K K DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, TRICHUR CORPORATION, OLLOOKKRA ZONAL OFFICE, KEEZHVAKKIL HOUSE, P.O MANNUTHI PATTALAKUNNU, THRISSUR-680 651.**
- **32 SANTHOSH P V DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, OLLOOKKARA ZONAL OFFICE, PAYYAPPATU HOUSE, P.O MANNUTHI PATTALAKUNNU, OLLOOKKARA ZONAL OFFICE, KUTTICHIRA-680 651.**
**33 LAILA A P DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, PAREETHU AMBALATH HOUSE, PO MANNUTHY, MULLAKARA THRISSUR-680 651.**
**34 INDIRA MOHAN DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, 2ND CIRCLE, ELAYADAN HOUSE, MAILYPADOM, CHEMBUKKAVU P.O., KACHERI, KIZHAKKEKOTTA P.O., THRISSUR-680 005, MOBILE 8113035705.**
- **35 SHIRLY T.F DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O., MANNUTHI, PATTALAKUNNU, THRISSUR-680 651.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 13**
- **36 OMANA VIJAYAN**
**DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, 2ND CIRLCLE, KOMBIL HOUSE, CHEMBUKAVU P.O KUNDUVARA (VIA), KIZHAKKEKOTTA P.O, THRISSUR680 005, MOBILE 8113852538.**
**37 JOHNSON CK DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, CHITTULAPILLY HOUSE, LENIN NAGAR, PATTALAKUNNU P.O., MANNUTHY THRISSUR DISTRICT.**
- **38 KANNAN C R DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, S/O.RAGHAVAN, CHAMBILLI HOUSE, KURKKANCHERRY P.O., KANNANKULANGARA CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR-680 007.**
- **39 NOORJAHAN K M DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, W/O.SHAMSUDDHIN, AMBALATHU VEEDU, KOOTTALA P.O., PIN-680 652**
- **40 SUKUMARAN P.V DAILY WAGED CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE, THRISSUR CORPORATION, PARLY HOUSE, P.O VADOOKKARA S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THRISSUR-680 007.**
**BY ADV. SMT.T.B.MINI**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
- **2 THE DIRECTOR URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
- **3 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORTION REP BY ITS SECRETRY, CORPORTION OFFICE, THRISSUR688 001.**
## **R3 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION**
## **SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP**
## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 14**
**09.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9892/2020(J), WP(C).11315/2020(L), WP(C).12225/2020(C), WP(C).16564/2020(U), WP(C).25747/2020(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 15**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.16564 OF 2020(U)**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**JAYA C. R.**|
|---|---|
||**AGED 48 YEARS**|
||**D/O. RAGHAVAN C. R., CHETTAKKULAM HOUSE,**|
||**KURICHIKKARA, THANIKUDAM, KALLAI, THRISSUR, PIN -**|
||**680 028.**|
|**2**|**RENIL P. O.**|
||**AGED 37 YEARS**|
||**S/O. OUSEPH, PAZHUNNANA HOUSE, ANCHERY P. O., M. R.**|
||**ROAD, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 006.**|
|**3**|**SREEDEVI C. K.**|
||**AGED 49 YEARS**|
||**W/O. RAJAN K. V., KARANCHIRA HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA P.**|
||**O., KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 015.**|
|**4**|**NIBIN P. B.**|
||**AGED 31 YEARS**|
||**S/O. BENNY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA P. O., STAFF**|
||**QUARTERS ROAD, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -**|
||**680 006.**|
|**5**|**RAJAN K. K.**|
||**AGED 46 YEARS**|
||**S/O. KUNJU K. V., KADUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,**|
||**CHITTISSERY P. O., THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN**|
||**- 680 301.**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.ARUN ASHOK**|
||**SMT.NEENA JAMES**|
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 16**
- **2 THE DIRECTOR URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.**
**3 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 001.**
**R3 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9892/2020(J), WP(C).11315/2020(L), WP(C).12225/2020(C), WP(C).15307/2020(K), WP(C).25747/2020(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 17**
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.25747 OF 2020(P)**
## **PETITIONERS:**
**1 P.M.SREENIVASAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, PARAMEL HOUSE, PUTHOORKKARA AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680003. 2 GOVINDANKUTTY A.R, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KANKAPARAMBIL VILLADAM, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR-680631. 3 SUMA KRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, NEDIYAMVEETTIL HOUSE, VARIYAM LANE, THIRUVAMBADI, THRISSUR-680022. 4 SHAJU KUMAR P.S., AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SHANMUGAN, PANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., VALANCE ROAD, THRISSUR-680027.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY SMT.KIRAN ANTONY**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**
**2 THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 18**
**DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.**
**3 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION THRISSUR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR-680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
**4 THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION THRISSUR, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR-680001.**
**R3-4 BY SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9892/2020(J), WP(C).11315/2020(L), WP(C).12225/2020(C), WP(C).15307/2020(K), WP(C).16564/2020(U), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 19**
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioners in all these cases –
which are being heard together and disposed
of through this judgment in the backdrop of the analogous factual circumstances pleaded and reliefs sought – are stated to be workers included in the 'Daily Labour Roll' (DLR) list maintained by the Thrissur Corporation.
2. The petitioners say that they were
recruited into service much more than a decade ago, through a valid selection process which was in vogue at the relevant time; but that they were never considered for regularization subsequently. They admit that the Government Orders, which relates to the absorption of DLR workers as 'Casual Labour Roll' (CLR) workers, mandate that only persons who are sponsored by the
Employment Exchange for such purpose can be
considered; but they assert that their case will have to be considered as a special one
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 20**
by the Thrissur Corporation on account of the fact that they have all been serving it for the last more than a decade continuously and without any break.
3. The petitioners add that in the case of the Kochi Corporation such an exercise was permitted by the Government and that a list of 770 persons were prepared, with all of them ordered to be regularized in the arising vacancies. They assert that as far as the petitioners are concerned, the only difference between them and the persons in the Kochi Corporation is that they are working in a different Corporation and
nothing else. The petitioners, therefore,
pray that the Government Orders impugned in these cases, which deny them the benefit of regularization, be set aside.
4. The various learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases point out that, in fact, the Thrissur Corporation had prepared a list of 310
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 21**
persons included in their DLR Register and had forwarded the same to the Government, through a letter dated 17.08.2017, seeking that they be permitted to regularize them and for creation of additional posts,
because consequent to the amalgamation of the various Panchayats into the Corporation, larger number of posts had become necessary.
5. The petitioners allege that, however, the Government, without considering any of the aspects in its proper
perspective, issued orders rejecting the said request of the Corporation and thus rendered it impossible for them to be
regularised in service. They predicate that this is wholly illegal and rely on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India & Others**_ **[(1996) 7 SCC 113]** and _**State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others**_ **[(1992) 4 SCC 118]** (cited by Shri.G.Krishnakumar, learned counsel
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 22**
appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C)No.1225 of 2020). They thus
reiteratingly pray that the orders impugned in these writ petitions, issued by the Government denying them their
regularization, be set aside.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Corporation, Shri.Santhosh
P.Poduval, in refutation of the above, submitted that the Thrissur Corporation was always interested in regularizing the services of the DLR Workers and affirmed that a list of 310 persons had been prepared on 17.08.2017 and forwarded to the
Government. He submitted that the request in the forwarding letter of the Corporation was to regularize all those persons by creation of additional posts; but that since this was rejected, the Corporation appointed 48 persons from the Employment Exchange in January 2020 and thus that the balance vacancies now available is only 87. He then
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 23**
submitted that the Thrissur Corporation is
willing to abide by any directions that this Court may issue with respect to these vacancies and prayed that no further orders
be issued against his client.
7. I notice from the files on record
that when these matters were considered by another learned Judge of this Court, an
interim order was issued in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 in the following tenor:
“The Municipality has filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 for modifying the interim order passed by this Court on 12.05.2020 directing that appointments shall be made only after getting permission from this Court. It is stated that the petitioners in the writ petition were considered for the post of Contingent Sanitation Workers as directed by this Court along with other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As the executive orders governing the appointment of sanitation workers provide that appointment shall be made through employment exchanges and the petitioners seek consideration along with those sponsored by the employment exchange, I am of the view that those who are within the age limit for being sponsored by employment exchange alone need be considered for appointment.
Therefore, the Municipality shall prepare a list of candidates who are within the upper age limit of 50 years and make appointments. The Municipality shall also furnish a list of such candidates before this Court”
8. The learned Standing Counsel for the
Thrissur Corporation, Shri.Santhosh
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 24**
P.Poduval, submits that in obedience to the afore directions, his client has prepared another list of eligible persons and that the same has been produced on record as Ext.R3(d) along with the counter affidavit
in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020. He then prayed that the Corporation be permitted to appoint these persons as CLR Workers forthwith.
9. I have examined Ext.R3(d) list produced in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 and notice that the said list has been prepared confining opportunity for selection solely to the petitioners in the said writ petition and not to the petitioners in any other
case. This is presumably because, the afore
extracted interim order was issued only in the said writ petition.
10. However, when one examines the
interim order, it is clear that the intent of this Court was to grant benefits to all those DLR Workers who are still below 50 years in age, taking note of the fact that
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 25**
- the applicable Government Orders
permitting regularization of CLR Workers in the Corporation - had fixed an upper age limit of 50, which is the one applicable for
being sponsored from the Employment Exchange.
11. Obviously, therefore, the opportunity which was given to the
petitioners in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 was not intended to be confined only to them, since the last portion of the interim order afore extracted clearly say that the _'Municipality shall prepare a list of candidates who are within the age limit of 50 years.'_
12. Therefore, to construe this interim
order as being applicable only to the petitioners in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 and not to any other similarly placed persons, especially those who were included in the earlier list prepared by the Corporation, would be to cause violence to the principles of equal justice and would be contrary to
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 26**
the concepts of fairness and fairplay. I am, therefore of the view that the afore extracted interim order in W.P.(C)No.9892 of 2020 should apply to all cases and also to all persons who were earlier included in the list of 310 DLR Workers prepared by the Thrissur Corporation.
13. The learned Government Pleader,
Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, made submissions virtually affirming my views as afore and he added that the resolve of the Government is also that all those people who were earlier included by the Thrissur Corporation in the list of 310 DLR Workers ought to be considered for being regularized in the manner as has been ordered by the learned Judge in the afore extracted interim order; and that it was not proper on the part of the Corporation to have confined such opportunity only to the petitioners in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020. He submitted that if the Thrissur Corporation prepares a proper
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 27**
list, after interviewing and selecting all those persons who were included in the earlier list of 310, subject to the upper age limit of 50; and forwards such a
proposal to the Director of Urban Affairs appropriately, the said Authority will consider the same and then transmit it to the Government for approval. The learned Government Pleader, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be ordered only on such terms.
14. Before I go forward, I must record certain corollary submissions made by some of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
15. Shri.G.Krishna Kumar, Shri.Ajeesh
K.Sasi, Shri.C.R.Rakesh Sharma, Shri.Arun Ashok Iyyani and Smt.T.B.Mini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, submitted that some of their clients have now crossed the age of fifty, but that they have been continuing in the
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 28**
services of the Corporation for the last more than 10 to 20 years. They submitted that all of them were appointed through a process well within the contours of law and on the basis of notifications and
invitations that were made by the concerned Authorities at the relevant time; and therefore, that, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supeme Court in _**Yashwant Hari Katakkar**_ (Supra) and _**Piara Singh**_ (Supra) it would not be permissible to deny them the benefit of regularization, merely because they have crossed the age of fifty.
16. The learned counsel contended that
the age limit of fifty has been fixed by this Court in the afore extracted interim order in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020, only because it had been submitted by the Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the upper age limit for being sponsored by the Employment Exchange is that, and for no other reason. They, therefore, prayed that
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 29**
the case of those DLR Workers who were
validly recruited into the services of the Corporation more than a decade or two ago, also be directed to be considered, along with the other candidates, particularly because, as per the ratio in _**Secretary,**_
_**State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi(3)**_
_**and Others**_ **[(2006)4 SCC 1],** only those
persons who were illegally appointed can be denied the benefits of regularization and not those who were recruited through a process of law. They thus prayed that all the petitioners in these cases be granted the opportunity of being subjected to the
process for regularization at the hands of the Corporation.
17. I find some force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as afore, because it is without doubt that in _**Umadevi**_ **(Supra),** what has been proscribed is the regularization of those candidates who entered services through the back door and
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 30**
without going through any valid or legally
sustainable process.
18. In the cases at hand, the
petitioners contend that they were all inducted into the services of the Thrissur Corporation as DLR Workers several years ago, on the strength of a valid invitation and notification and that they were appointed only after a proper selection process had been conducted by the concerned Authorities.
19. That said, there is no doubt that
the Government Orders, that stood at that relevant time, maintained that only candidates from the Employment Exchange could have been invited for being so appointed. But if, as a matter of fact, the Authorities had not followed the same, but still conducted a proper selection procedure, after inviting applications through a valid notification, then certainly, I find no reason why those
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 31**
candidates should be denied the benefit merely because they have crossed the age of fifty.
20. I am guided in this view by the
affirmative declarations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in _**Umadevi**_ **(Supra);** _**Yashwant Hari Katakkar**_ **(Supra) and** _**Piara Singh**_
## **(Supra).**
21. Discerning my mind as afore, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Corporation, Shri.Santhosh P.Poduval, prayed that liberty may be granted to his client to verify the case of the individual persons, who were earlier included in the list of 310
DLR Workers prepared by them and to verify
if any of them had been appointed as such through a valid process sanctioned in law; and that if such appointments were so made, then they be permitted to consider such persons also for the benefit of the interim order afore extracted.
22. I must record that the learned
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 32**
Government Pleader, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose did not oppose this, but only said that the evaluation of the initial appointments of the petitioners through other streams than the Employment Exchange will have to be carefully done by the Corporation before a list is drawn up; and that liberty may be reserved to the Director of Urban Affairs and the Government to verify this through reliable and cogent methods.
23. The sum total of the afore makes it clear that the list prepared by the Corporation earlier - which included 310 DLR Workers - was one which contained the names and details of all persons who were working in the Corporation until then. All of them cannot be considered for regularization, since it is stated that only 87 vacancies are now available. As has been already directed by this Court in the afore extracted interim order, the Corporation
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 33**
ought to have made an assessment of all the
310 DLR Workers, who are now in their rolls - including the petitioners herein, and ought to have verified whether they were appointed through a process known to law and whether they have crossed the age of fifty.
24. These criteria are relevant because, the extant Government Orders make it clear that only persons who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange can be appointed as a DLR worker; but if in spite of this, the Authorities had made a proper notification
and had conducted a valid selection process, which was approved by the competent
Authorities, then I see no reason why such
persons also should not be considered for regularization in terms of law.
In the afore circumstances, I order
these writ petitions and set aside the Government Orders impugned; and
consequentially, direct the Corporation to evaluate the credentials of all persons
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 34**
presently on their DLR Roll, which includes the petitioners, as also all the persons who were earlier included in the list of 310 DLR Workers, along with those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange; and to then prepare a list of all those candidates found eligible, as per the criteria above, for being regularized to the post of CLR workers.
Needless to say, in the case of those candidates who have crossed the age of fifty, the Corporation will have to carefully verify whether they were appointed initially through a process known to law and after a proper selection; and if it is found so, such persons will also be eligible to be included as per the ratio in _**Umadevi**_ **(Supra),** with specific remarks shown against them that they have been so included on account of the fact that they have gone through a valid process initially. On such a list being prepared, the
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 35**
Corporation will forward the same to the Director of Urban Affairs appositely, along with their proposal and request, which shall then be forwarded by the said Authority to the Government for their concurrence, after proper verification - including as to whether the persons who are above the age of fifty were properly included, having undergone a valid selection process initially.
The afore exercise shall be completed by
the Thrissur Corporation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the list shall then be processed by the Director of Urban Affairs within a period of two months after it is received by him from the Corporation. Once the Director of Urban Affairs
completes his verification and forwards the same to the Government, the Government will pass appropriate orders on it without any avoidable delay, but not later than two
## **WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 36**
months from the date of which it is received by them.
I make it clear that these directions are confined to the benefit of the petitioners herein and to those who were included in the list of 310 DLR Workers earlier and not to any other person; and that all future appointments to be made by the Thrissur Corporation will scrupulously abide by the Government Orders which mandate that the candidates must be sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
After I dictated this part of the judgment, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader, submitted that if the Corporation intends to seek creation of additional posts, then they must make a specific and independent proposal for the same and forward it to the Director of Urban Affairs, along with the list, as ordered by this Court.
It goes without saying that this will be
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 37**
the process to be followed by the Corporation if they require additional posts to be created; and I direct them to do so if they are so interested.
**Sd/-**
**DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE**
**MC/10.3.2021**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 38**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9892/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 4.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH OFFICER OF 3RD RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED PH2/25997/15 DATED 17.8.2017 AND 18.10.2016 TO THE GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH LIST OF DAILY WAGES SANITATION WORKERS IN CONTINGENT SERVICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.**
- **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION NIL DATED ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 7.5.2020.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) 14/82/LBR DATED 22.4.1982.**
**EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) 91/2001/LSGD DATED 29.3.2001.**
- **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.10.2016 IN WPC NO.31034/2016.**
- **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.2.2017 IN WPC NO.31034/2016.**
- **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2017 IN WPC NO.31034/2016.**
- **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.9.2019 IN WP(C) NO.24141/2019.**
- **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.3.2019 IN WPC NO.4572/2019.**
- **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:**
- **EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.24345/2018 DATED 22.02.2019.**
- **EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/08/2012 ISSUED BY EMPLOYMENT OFFICER.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 39**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11315/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DECISION TO REGULARIZE THE 310 CONTINGENT WORKERS DATED 07-07-2017 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED PH2 25997/15 DATED 17-08-2017 AND 18-10-2016 TO THE GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH THE LIST PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT CORPORATION OF THE DAILY WAGES SANITATION WORKERS IN CONTIGENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 91/2001 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT DEPARTMENT KERALA, DATED 29-03-2001 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) 14/82/LBR DATED 22-04-1982 DATED 22-04-1982 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DATED 04-05-2020, ISSUED BY THE HEALTH OFFICER OF 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA, DATED 18-05-2020 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF 3RD RESPONDENT CORPORATION EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER ALONG WITH THE EMPLOYMENT CARD OF THE FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 31034/2016 EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13-03-2019 IN WPC NO. 4572/2019 EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 24141 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN WPC NO 9892/2020, DATED 12-05-2020**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 40 EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF INTERIVIEW ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THRISSUR MUNICPAL CORPORATION RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.24345/2018 DATED 22.02.2019. EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/08/2012 ISSUED BY EMPLOYMENT OFFICER.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 41**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12225/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.91/2001/LSGD DATED 28.3.2001. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2005 BEARING NO.B2/2115/2005. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF DLR WORKERS PREPARED BY 3RD RESPONDENT CORPORATION.**
**EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.11.2018 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(M.S) NO.2569/2009/LSGD DATED 7.10.2009. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NIL DATED H2 9333/2004 ISSUED BY ALUVA MUNICIPALITY. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.3.2019 IN W.P(C) NO.6886/2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.3.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ANOTHER PERSON NAMED SAHADEVAN. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.12.2017 IN WPC NO.3180/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.8.2018 IN WA NO.1635/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)3140/2018/LSGD DATED 13.12.2018 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M113/016443/2007 DATED 5.11.2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 42**
**4.5.2020 ISSUED ONE OF THE CANDIDATES BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT CORPORATION. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 43**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15307/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
- **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/5/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF LIST OF CONTINGENT WORKERS PUBLISHED BY THE TRICHUR CORPORATION.**
- **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF 3RD RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 7/7/17.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC 31893/2018 AND WPC 24345/18.**
- **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/4/19 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN UMADEVI VS.STATE OF KARNATAKA.**
- **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TIWARI AND OTHERS VS STATE OF JHARKHAND.**
- **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) 2569/2009/LSGD DATED 7/10/2009.**
- **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) 2459/2011/LSGD DATED 25/10/2011.**
- **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE THRISSUR CORPORATION**
- **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**
- **EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 44**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16564/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2017.**
**EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O.(MS) NO.14/82/LBR DATED 22.04.1982. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.9892 OF 2020 DATED 12.05.2020. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**
**EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER.**
**WP(C).No.9892/2020&Con.Cases 45**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25747/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST APPROVED BY THE THRISSUR CORPORATION.**
**EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION MADE BY THE COUNSEL DATED 07.07.2017.**
- **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, SECRETARY THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.**
**EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2019 IN W.P(C)NO.24345/2018 AND CONNECTED WP(C)NO.31893/2018. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.3180/2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2018 IN W.A.NO.1635/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)3140/2018/LSGD DATED 13.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2019 OF COCHIN CORPORATION. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R3(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER.**