High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

OP.No. 11685 of 2000 (N)

Case / Petition Number:OP No. 11685/2000 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. M. Joseph
Judgment Date
2008-01-21
Court Decision / Holding
Original Petition is dismissed. The Court did not disturb Ext.P7 but held that absorption or regularisation cannot be claimed by the petitioners in light of Umadevi and the need for sanctioned posts; it left open the petitioners’ right to pursue remedies with the third respondent for non-regularised benefits.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • A. Rama
  • Dauakara
  • K. Chathukutty Hari
  • A. Ramesha
  • H. Mahalinga Naik
  • K. Kunhikrisnan
  • A. Latheesha
  • T. Thamban
  • V. M. Uthaman
  • M. P. Chandran
  • A. Narayanan
  • A. Rama
  • V. Balan
  • K.K. Kanakaveni
  • Cicily M.C. W/o Pappachan
  • Madhusoodhanan N.
  • K.K. Gangadharann

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, rep. by Secretary to Government, Department of Local Administration, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Director of Municipalities, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Kasaragod Municipality, rep. by its Secretary, Kasaragod

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. Sasindran
  • • Bepin Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • N. Sudha Devi
  • • P. Santhal Lingam
  • • A. D. Shajan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Original Petition (OP) concerns 17 substitute daily-wage workers employed by Kasaragod Municipality who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and selected for engagement as substitute workers. A panel of 25 candidates existed, with Ext.P1 being the rank list. Petitioners contend that once vacancies exist, absorption into regular posts in the contingent establishment should occur, since Kasaragod Municipality became the District headquarters and a Grade I Municipality, but staffing strength did not increase. They allege that despite vacancies, sanctioned posts were not created, while Government orders (G.O. 107/92/LAD) directed filling vacancies in the contingent establishment from the substitute list. Ext.P2 records a prior judgment (1993) in OP 13012/1993; Ext.P3–P5 relate to communications between the Municipality and the first respondent seeking sanction for additional posts; Ext.P7 records a Government directive to outsource certain activities (including sanitation), as a financial constraint mode. After the petition was filed, some petitioners were absorbed but paid only daily wages; petitioners argue absorption into sanctioned posts constitutes regularisation. While the court recognizes absorbed employees’ entitlement to consideration against sanctioned posts, it relies on the Umadevi doctrine (Secretary v. Umadevi) that regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petition is dismissed; however, petitioners may pursue any remedies before the third respondent for non-regularised benefits. Outsourcing was introduced on an experimental basis as per government policy.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(MS) No.107/92/LAD dated 20.4.1992

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Umadevi doctrine (Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1) – regularisation of daily wage workers cannot be claimed as permanent absorption; governments may implement outsourcing in constrained finances as policy
  • Outsourcing as a permissible government policy/measure in urban local bodies as an alternative to regularisation when fiscal constraints apply

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants argued that absorption should be allowed against sanctioned posts and that some petitioners already absorbed should receive regularised wages; Exts.P3–P5 show the Government’s sanction processes and Ext.P7 shows outsourcing as a policy measure to address financial constraints. They contend the Court should quash Ext.P7 and compel absorption; they seek wages equal to regular employees.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that sanction of new posts is required for absorption; Ext.P7 shows the Government’s outsourcing policy to address budgetary difficulties; absorption cannot be ordered where posts lack sanction; the first petitioner has already been absorbed; the petition is to be rejected given financial and legal constraints.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others2006 (4) SCC 1PositiveCourt explicitly relies on Umadevi doctrine to deny lawful absorption/regularisation of daily-wage substitute workers.
OP. 13012/1993OP 13012/1993Mentioned OnlyExt.P2 is a copy of this judgment; referenced but content not discussed in the decision.
OP. 8286/99OP 8286/99Mentioned OnlyExt.P6 is the judgment of this Court in OP. 8286/99; cited as exhibit without elaboration on its content.

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 OP.No. 11685 of 2000 (N) 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 K.M.JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929** ## **OP.No. 11685 of 2000(N)** ## **----------------------------------** **PETITIONERS:** - **------------------** **1. A.RAMA, S/O. CHAKRA, AMEY COLONY, KASARAGOD.** **2. DAUAKARA, S/O.ANGARA, KOTTOOR P.O., MULIYAR VILLAGE.** **3. K.CHATHUKUTTY HARI, S/O. K.MUTHU NAIR, KUNDAKAM HOUSE, P.O.KARADKA, (VIA), MULLERIYA.** **4. A.REMESHA, S/O. LATE ANANDA, NULLIPPADY. CHENNIKKARA, KASARAGOD.** **5. H.MAHALINGA NAIK, S/O. DEVAPPA NAIK, HALAMOOLA HOUSE, P.O. BAYAR, (VIA), UPPALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6. K,.KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIORAMAN, KUNDIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAPPURAM, (VIA), NILESHWAR.** **7. A.LATHEESHA, S/O. LATE BABU, AMEY HOUSE, KASARAGOD.** **8. T.THAMBAN, S/O.KANNA PODUVAL E.V., THEKKUMKARA HOUSE, P.O.BALLA, VIA, ANANDASHRAM, KANHANGAD.** **9. V.M.UTHAMAN, S/O. LATE RAMAN, KOZHAKOTTU HOUSE, P.O.BADADKA, VIA CHENGALA.** **10. M.P.CHANDRAN, S/O. LATE M.P.KUNHIRAMAN ACHARY MENIKKOTTE PADINHARE VEEDU, P.O. UPPILAKKAI, NILESHWAR VIA.** ## **OP. NO.11685/2000** ## **11. A.NARAYANAN, S/O. SANJEEVA, AMEY, KASARAGOD.** **12. A.RAMA, S/O. KITTA, NALKALAM HARIJAN COLONY, VIDYANAGAR P.O.** **13. V. BALAN, S/O. AMBU,. CHANDERA P.O., MANIYAT, VIA THRIKARIPUR.** **14. K.K.KANAKAVENI, D/O. KUNHAMBU MARAR P.V. VADAKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. NILESHWAR 671 314.** **15. CICILY M.C. W/O.PAPPACHAN, MUNICIPAL QUARTERS, ASHOK NAGAR, KASARAGOD.** **16. MADHUSOODHANAN N., S/O. NARAYANAN, MACHIPURAM HOUSE, P.O. CHERUVATHUR.** **17. K.K.GANGADHARAN, S/O. PANDU, CHICKALAMAM, P.O. MADIKKAI.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN** **RESPONDENTS:** - **-----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KASARAGOD.** - **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI** - **BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM SRI.A.D.SHAJAN** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/ 01/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **OP. NO.11685/2000** **ORDER ON CMP. NO.19155/2000 IN OP. NO.11685/2000** ## **DISMISSED** ## **21.01.2008 SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** ## **EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE RANK LIST SUBSTITUTE WORKERS IN HEALTH SECTION OF KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY.** **EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DT. 30.11.93 IN OP. 13012/1993.** **EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 17.2.97.** **EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSEUD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 16.1.98.** **EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE PROFORMA ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER.** **E.DXT.P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. 8286/99. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.12.99 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **K. M. JOSEPH, J.** ## **----------------------------------O.P NO. 11685 OF 2000 N ------------------------------------Dated this the 21st January, 2008** ## **JUDGMENT** There are seventeen petitioners in the Original Petition. They are working as substitute workers in the third respondent. Their names were sponsored by the Employment Exc hange and they were selected by the Municipality and a panel was created for twentyfive candidates for engagement as substitute daily waged workers. Ext.P1 is the rank list. It is the further case of the petitioners that persons included in the list will be appointed as daily waged workers. The appointment into the regular service in the public contingent establishment of the Municipality is by way of absorption from among the substitute workers according to the vacancy. It is stated that after formation of the Kasaragod District, the Municipality became the head quarters of the District and now it is a Grade I Municipality. But, the strength of the contingent workers were not enhanced. It is stated that since 1991, the petitioners are _**OP NO.11685/00 N**_ _**2**_ continuously working in the Municipality. Though there are vacancies, for want of sanction from respondents 1 and 2, they are denied regularisation in the contingent establishment of the Municipality. It is pointed out that the Government has ordered by G.O.(MS) No.107/92/LAD dated 20.4.1992 that the vacancies in the contingent establishment of the Municipality must be filled up by absorbing the substitute workers from the rank list prepared by the Municipality. Ext.P2 is a Judgment of this Court. It is stated that the Municipal Council by resolution dated 28.,12.1996 decided to request the Government to accord sanction for 28 more posts of contingent workers. Ext.P3 is the of the communication from the the copy Secretary of Municipality to the first respondent dated 17.2.1997. Details were called for by the second respondent from all Municipalities. The third respondent Municipality addressed Ext.P5. This Court was approached and by Ext.P6 Judgment, this Court directed consideration and to pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P5. Ext.P7 followed. By Ext.P7, the _**OP NO.11685/00 N**_ _**3**_ Government taking note of the financial difficulties being suffered by the Municipalities, decided to issue directions to the Urban Local Bodies to introduce outsourcing of certain activities including sanitation work. Therefore the Government has directed to introduce outsourcing of sanitation works on an experimental basis in accordance with the general guidelines being issued by Government separately. 2. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, essentially referring to Ext.P7 order. It is stated that sanction of the Government is required for creation of new posts. It is also stated that the first petitioner has been absorbed. Petitioners seek to quash Ext.P7 and to command the third respondent to absorb the petitioners as contingent workers. A further direction is sought to the third respondent to pay wages to the petitioners which is being paid to the regular workers. Another direction sought is to command respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate steps and sanction posts as sought for in Exts.P3 and P5. _**OP NO.11685/00 N**_ _**4**_ 3. Counsel for the petitioners points out that after the filing of the Original Petition. petitioners 5,8, 11, 12, 14 and 16 have been absorbed, but they are paid only the amount which has been paid as daily wages. Petitioners were all admittedly appointed on daily wages. Regularisation is not intended to confer permanency. The appointment of the petitioners were not regular appointments. No doubt, they are entitled to be absorbed against the posts which are created with formal sanction by the Government. In such circumstances and having regard to the financial constraints, if posts are not sanctioned, it is not for this Court to sit in judgment over the same. Having regard to the nature of the appointment and having regard to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006 (4) SCC 1), it cannot be said that the petitioner can claim absorption or regularisation. In such circumstances, I cannot find any illegality or any other vitiating ground to upset Ext.P7 order passed by the Government. The Original Petition is liable to be _**OP NO.11685/00 N**_ _**5**_ dismissed. Of course, it is pointed out that the benefits due to regular employees is denied to those petitioners who have been absorbed. I leave open the right of those petitioners to represent the said matter before the third respondent and pursue the matter. Subject to the above, the Original Petition is dismissed. **K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE** kbk. ## **K. M. JOSEPH, J.** ## **O.P NO. 11685 OF 2000 N** ## **JUDGMENT** **21st January, 2008.**