High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-13Writ petition dismissed.

Kannan P.A. and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.29091 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2022-05-13
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kannan P.A., aged 30 years S/O. LATE ANANDAN, Mekkattu Parambu House, Kizakkeppram, Athani, N. Paravur, Ernakulam, Pin 683513
Sethu Manoharan P, aged 30 years S/O. LATE MANOHARAN, Pokkathupambarbil House, Nambiattukunnam, N. Paravur, Ernakulam, Pin 683513
Shibu Mathai, aged 42 years S/O. LATE MATHAI, Thaiparambil House, Kottakkappally, Perumpadanna, N. Paravur, Ernakulam, Pin 683513
Dileep Kumar K.G, aged 58 years S/O. K. Gopalan, Kummappilly House, Thoithara, N. Paravur, Ernakulam, Pin 683513

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Secretary to Government, Department of Local Self-Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Director of Urban Affairs, Directorate of Urban Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Paravur Municipality, Municipal Junction, Main Road, North Paravur, Pin 683513
The Secretary, Paravur Municipality, Municipal Junction, Main Road, North Paravur, Pin 683513

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• BABU KARUKAPADATH
• M.A. VAHEEDA BABU
• P.U. VINOD KUMAR ARYA
• RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V.
• T.M. MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ MOHAMED
• HISHAM P KARUKAPADATH
• WAZIM BABU
• P. LAKSHMI AISWARYA
• ANN JACOB

Counsels for Respondents

• Anoop V. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, four casual labourers engaged for sanitation work in Paravur Municipality since 2013-2017, were disengaged with effect from 01.12.2021 as part of a rationalisation in the wake of financial strain and a reduced workload following the Covid-19 surge. They challenged the order as an attempt to replace them with a fresh batch of casual workers and claimed entitlement to regularisation under the decision in Hameshdas K.H. and others v. The State of Kerala and others (2021) ILR (Ker.) 456. In their writ petition, they sought mandamus to compel the 4th and 5th respondents to continue engaging them as casual labourers and to take steps to regularise them in service, to refrain from termination, and to allow participation in any fresh selection if one were to be conducted, to replace them only after the petitioners could be retained until the process completed. The State/Respondents contended that 40 permanent sanitation workers and seven substitute workers through Employment Exchange already meet the needs, that the resolution No.12 (20.11.2021) had abolished the CLR posts because of financial constraints and reduced workload, and that engagement must be through Employment Exchange as per government directives. The court noted that Hameshdas related to Daily Labour Rolls in Thrissur Corporation and involved a different factual matrix; thus, it cannot be used to compel regularisation here. The petition is dismissed for lack of a proper context to grant relief.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the Municipality’s disengagement of CLR workers and move to substitute with fresh casual workers violated their rights to continue in service and be regularised where permissible by this court’s 2021 (3) ILR (Ker.) 456 decision (Hameshdas). They urged mandamus to compel continued engagement and to be regularised, or at least to be allowed to participate in any future selection to be conducted by the Municipality until their retention could be completed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that disengagement was necessitated by financial constraints and reduced workload. There are 40 permanent sanitation workers and seven substitutes appointed via Employment Exchange, making CLR posts redundant. The Government’s directive requires engagement of casual workers through Employment Exchange. The 20.11.2021 resolution No.12 had abolished CLR posts, and after disengagement, new hires have been made to meet sanitation needs. The Hameshdas decision does not apply to the petitioners’ context as their case differs (DLR vs CLR) and cannot be used to compel regularisation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hameshdas K.H and others v. The State of Kerala and others	2021(3) ILR (Ker.) 456	Distinguished	The court distinguishes the Hameshdas decision as inapplicable to the petitioners’ context due to differences in factual matrix (petitioners were not the DLR workers in Thrissur Corporation) and thus cannot be used to compel regularisation in this case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Kannan P.A. 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 29091 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 KANNAN. P.A., AGED 30 YEARS S/O. LATE ANANDAN, MEKKATTU PARAMBU HOUSE, KIZAKKEPRAM, ATHANI, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 513. 2 SETHU MANOHARAN P, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. LATE MANOHARAN, POKKATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAMBIATTUKUNNAM, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 513. 3 SHIBU MATHAI, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. LATE MATHAI, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAPPALLY, PERUMPADANNA, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 513. 4 DILEEP KUMAR K.G, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. K. GOPALAN, KUMMAPPILLY HOUSE, THOITHARA, N. PARAVU, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 513 BY ADVS. BABU KARUKAPADATH M.A.VAHEEDA BABU P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V. T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ MOHAMED HISHAM P KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU P.LAKSHMI AISWARYA ANN JACOB ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF- GOVERNMENT, W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -2- GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 3 THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 4 PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5 THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 513. BY ADV ANOOP.V.NAIR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP VENUGOPAL V **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2022, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 13[th] day of May, 2022 The petitioners were engaged as casual labourers for doing sanitation works in the fourth respondent Municipality with effect from 01.05.2013, 01.05.2017, 08.05.2017 and 21.05.2017 respectively. While so, on 30.11.2021, the petitioners were informed that they need not report for duty from 01.12.2021 onwards. According to the petitioners, the attempt of the Municipality is to replace them with another batch of casual labourers. Relying on the decision in _**Hameshdas K.H and others v. The State**_ _**of Kerala and others [2021(3) ILR (Ker.) 456]**_ , the petitioners contend that being CLR workers, they are entitled for regularisation. In the writ petition, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs; _“(i) Issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents 4 and 5 to continue to engage the_ W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -4- _petitioners as Casual Labourers and to take immediate steps to regularise them in service._ _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents, not to terminate the service of the petitioners and to regularise them in service of the 4[th] respondent by following the procedure laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 2021 (3) ILR (Kerl) 456._ _(iii) Direct the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection, if at all the 4[th] respondent intends to conduct fresh selection, to select persons to replace the petitioners, by permitting the petitioners to continue till the selection process is completed.”_ 2. Adv.M.A.Vaheedha Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, while the Municipal Council discontinued the service of the petitioners, their juniors are allowed to continue. It is submitted that various other Municipalities and Corporations having taken steps to regularise the service of casual labourers, the fourth respondent is also bound to initiate such action in the light of the decision W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -5- ## in _**Hameshdas and others**_ . 3. Learned Counsel for the 4[th] respondent Municipality submitted that 40 permanent sanitation workers and 7 substitute sanitation workers recruited through Employment Exchange are carrying out the sanitation works in the Municipality. Earlier, _vide_ resolution dated 2.03.2013, the Municipal Council had approved the recommendations of the Health Standing Committee to hire temporary/contract workers on CLR basis. The petitioners were appointed on the basis of the said decision and were allowed to continue in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and related issues. Taking into account the financial difficulty faced by the Municipality and reduction in the workload of sanitation workers, the fourth respondent Municipality, as per resolution No.12 dated 20.11.2021, had decided to disengage the CLR workers and not to engage any temporary/contract employees in their place. Consequently, on 01.12.2021, the petitioners were W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -6- informed about the decision and requested not to report for duty. It is submitted that the Municipality is having sufficient number of permanent sanitation workers and substitute sanitation workers appointed through Employment Exchange for meeting its sanitation requirements. It is contended that having been relieved and the post of CLR workers abolished, the petitioners cannot aspire for regularisation on the strength of the judgment in _**Hameshdas**_ . 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, after disengaging the petitioners, the respondent Municipality has appointed other sanitation workers and hence, the submissions made on behalf of the Municipality lack bona fides. 5. Learned Standing Counsel clarified that, persons engaged after relieving the petitioners are substitute sanitation workers appointed through the Employment Exchange. 6. Indisputably the petitioners, who were ## W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -7- engaged on temporary/contractual basis, were disengaged with effect from 01.12.2021. The disengagement is based on resolution No.12 of the Municipal Council dated 20.11.2021. The said resolution is not under challenge in this writ petition. Moreover, the decision was taken in view of the adverse financial condition of the Municipality and reduction in sanitation works due to subsiding of the surge in Covid cases. 7. The fact that after disengaging the petitioners, the Municipality has appointed sanitary workers through Employment Exchange will not give rise to a fresh cause of action for the petitioners. As contended by the Standing Counsel, as per the directives of the Government, engagement of casual workers can only be through Employment Exchange. 8. The decision in _**Hameshdas**_ was rendered in the context of the petitioners therein, who were workers included in the Daily Labour Rolls (DLR) of the Thrissur Corporation, having W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -8- continued in service for more than a decade and the Corporation itself having sought the Government's permission to regularise their service. The petitioners' case being entirely different, _**Hameshdas**_ cannot be relied on for compelling this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Municipality to regularise the service of the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/ W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021 -9- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29091/2021** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD| |---|---| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||MUNICIPALITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ,| ||EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS| ||CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER IT.| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||MUNICIPALITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER,| ||EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS| ||CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER IT.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||MUNICIPALITY TO THE 3RD PETITIONER,| ||EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS| ||CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER ITS.| |Exhibit P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||MUNICIPALITY TO THE 4TH PETITIONER ,| ||EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS| ||CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER IT.| |Exhibit P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED| ||2.3.2022 RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY UNDER THE RTI| ||ACT.| |Exhibit P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED| ||2.2.2022 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN| ||CONTEMPT CASE NO-213/2022| |Exhibit P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED| ||2.3.2022 SUBSEQUENTLY FILED BY T HE| ||5TH RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO-| ||213/2022 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE.|