K.K. Saraswathy v. Secretary, Corporation of Kochi

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932** **WP(C).No. 12920 of 2007(K)** **----------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **---------------** **K.K.SARASWATHY,W/O.K.V.SUBRAMANYAN, PATTATHIPARAMBU HOUSE,H.NO.20/910,PALLURUTHY P.O, KOCHI-6.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO** **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------** **SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF KOCHI.** **ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 12920 of 2007** **APPENDIX** EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 7/1/1994 IN O.P.NO.10673/1993. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REMINDING LETTER DATED 28.2.2007. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ----------------------------------- ## W.P.(C) No.12920 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8[th] day of February, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was employed as a CLR worker under the respondent Corporation. When she had put in five years of service, she requested for absorption in a permanent post. Since her claim was not considered favourably, the petitioner filed O.P.No.10673/1993 and by Ext.P1 judgment, the same was disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation, which was directed to be considered by the Corporation. According to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a representation, which was never considered or disposed of. After putting in 18 years of service, the petitioner has now filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i)Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to reckoned the service period of the petitioner from 8/2/1989 to March 2007 as permanent service and sanction the post retirement benefits such as provident fund, pension, gratuity etc. to the petitioner like permanent employee under the respondent Corporation. ii)Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the Exhibit P-2 representation submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible” 2 W.P.(C)No.12920/07 2. A statement has been filed by the respondent wherein it is specifically contended that, in view of Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, since the very same relief was rejected by this Court by Ext.P1 judgment. It is further submitted that the petitioner's name is included in the list of CLR workers prepared and regular appointments can be made from that list only in accordance with the seniority in that list as and when vacancies arise. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court has categorically held thus: “xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 4. The claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to regular appointment under the respondent seems to me to be untenable. Appointment could be made only as per the rules for recruitment. She is only a C.L.R. worker on daily wages. In other words, her employment is casual and temporary. Respondent is not obliged to regularise her appointment or to absorb her in the establishment. But then she seems to have a grievance, which deserves to be considered. 5. In the circumstances she may make a representation to the respondent, which shall be considered and disposed of as per the relevant rules without delay. The decision taken shall be communicated to her”. (underlining supplied) W.P.(C)No.12920/07 3 From the same, it is abundantly clear that this Court had repelled the claim of the petitioner for regularisation categorically. Of course, the petitioner was permitted to file a representation and the same was directed to be considered. But, that does not take away the effect of the finding in respect of the petitioner's claim for regularisation. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, that was at a time when the petitioner had only put in five years of service and now that the petitioner has put in 18 years of service, she is entitled to regularisation. But, there is a specific finding in Ext.P1 judgment that appointment could be made only as per the rules for recruitment. The petitioner has no case that subsequently the petitioner has been appointed as per the rules of recruitment. As such, the finding in Ext.P1 judgment still stands in the way of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has put in further more years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in _**SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS V. UMA DEVI (3) AND OTHERS**_ [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and _**State of Karnataka and others**_ v. _**M.L. Kesari**_ 4 W.P.(C)No.12920/07 _**& others**_ [(2010) 9 SCC 247]. But a reading of the those judgments would show that such regularisation of irregular appointments can also be made only in cases where the appointment is to a sanctioned post. Here, the petitioner herself contend that she is only a CLR worker. In fact, she is actually seeking absorption in a permanent post. She has no case that she was appointed in a sanctioned regular post. As such, those decisions have no applications to the petitioner's case. In view of the above findings, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.12920/07 5 W.P.(C)No.12920/07 6