This writ appeal challenges a Kerala High Court single-judge order that upheld UGC guidelines and allowed the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) to conduct VI Semester B.Tech examinations offline in August–September 2021, despite COVID-19 concerns. The appellants, 29 VI Semester engineering students and their co-petitioners, contend that UGC guidelines of 2021, which revise and reinforce the 2020 guidelines, mandate internal evaluation and reliance on previous semester performance for intermediate semester/year assessments, rather than physical examinations. They argue the word “shall” in the 2021 guidelines makes compliance mandatory, and that the University’s notification dated 18 July 2021 (P1) to conduct offline examinations violates these guidelines (and AICTE/UGC advisories), exposing students to health risks. The petition also invokes Article 21 (Right to Life) and the precautionary principle amid the pandemic, seeking cancellation of the offline examinations. The respondents submit that UGC guidelines are advisory, read with government/competent authority directives; Kerala Government’s Disaster Management Order (4 August 2021) permits examinations; and many institutions already conducted examinations offline (over 70,000 students). The High Court, after analyzing the 2020 and 2021 UGC Guidelines and the state order, held that the guidelines are advisory in nature; they do not bar offline examinations where the competent authority permits them, and the petitioners’ challenge is untenable. The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs.
W.P.(C) No. 14051/2022 & batch This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenges Kerala Water Authority’s insistence on furnishing Additional Performance Guarantee (APG) in tenders/contracts, in the backdrop of COVID-era relaxations and State Government orders. The batch analyzes Government of India Office Memoranda relaxing performance/security requirements during the pandemic, and State Government GO orders (07/2021, 32/2022, and 15/03/2022 extensions) that reduced or waived certain security deposits and performance guarantees in public procurement and contract execution. The core issues focus on whether these relaxations bind the State and the KWA in civil/works contracts, and whether APG can be insisted for item-rate and percentage-rate contracts, especially where schedules of rates or item-wise rates are involved. The court reviews the legal landscape, including GFRs, PWD Code/Manual, and MSME procurement policy, and ultimately holds that while Indian Government memoranda are not binding on the State in civil contracts, the State’s relaxations in 2021–2023 can/R may be applied with limits. Batch I disposes with detailed directions on APG, balancing contractor progress and risk, and clarifies that these directions are not to be treated as a general precedent for all ongoing/future tenders.
OP (Wakf) No. 3446 of 2013 This Original Petition challenges Ext.P3, a Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam order dated 3.4.2013, which dismissed I.A.243/2012 and I.A.214/2013 in WOA No.5/2012 for re-admission of a matter dismissed for default. The petitioners contend that the delay in filing delay-condonation petitions under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was only 22 days (as pleaded) and arose due to urgent personal matters and inability to contact counsel, and that Section 5 empowers admission after the prescribed period upon showing 'sufficient cause' and requires liberal construction to advance substantial justice. They submit that the Tribunal's reasoning relied on technicalities and failed to examine the 'sufficient cause' element, thereby undermining justice. The Wakf Tribunal’s order is set against a long line of decisions emphasizing that the expression 'sufficient cause' is to be construed liberally and that the discretion to condone delays must be exercised in light of the facts, conduct, and potential for meritorious dispute on merits. The court recognizes that delays, even short ones, should be condoned when there is no gross negligence or mala fides. It urges a practical, merits-based approach and advocates setting aside the impugned order, condoning the delay, and re-admitting the matter for consideration on merits, with directions for expeditious hearing. The ultimate relief grants the petition, directing the Tribunal to proceed on merits within a three-month window.
BAIL APPL. NO. 987 OF 2023 This bail petition (BAIL APPL. NO. 987 OF 2023) concerns Anandhu Prasannan, the first accused in Crime No. 2491/2022 of the Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam. The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, delivered its order on 3 March 2023 after hearing the matter on 17 February 2023. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 8 December 2022, the accused restrained the defacto complainant while travelling in a car, pursued him in another vehicle, and subjected him to beatings with an iron pipe, with the overall incident arising out of animosity regarding contract work allotted to the defacto complainant under KSEB. The first accused is said to have forcefully pulled the complainant from his car; the second accused is alleged to have assaulted with a granite stone, with charges including 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 506(i) and 34 IPC r/w 34. The petitioner’s counsel sought regular bail, citing prolonged custody since 13 December 2022 and progress of investigation. The Public Prosecutor contended the petitioner is a habitual offender with a history of rowdy activities and multiple prior crimes in 2022–2023, justifying continued restraint. The court, noting the seriousness of the allegations but finding the petitioner to be the prime accused and considering custody duration, granted bail with conditions such as bond and sureties, no witness intimidation, cooperation with investigation, regular IO appearances, restrictions on inducement, passport surrender, and KAAPA-related safeguards.
WA Nos. 1189, 1225, 1231 & 1240 of 2021 The four writ appeals (WA Nos. 1189, 1225, 1231, 1240 of 2021) challenge a common judgment of a Kerala High Court Single Judge which had quashed the Thrippangottur Grama Panchayat Secretary’s orders declining D&O licenses for quarrying and directed issue of licenses to the writ petitioners subject to riders. The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly examined whether the Grama Panchayat, under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the accompanying Rules (1996), could or should independently decide on dangerous and offensive trades such as stone quarrying, particularly where environmental and disaster-related concerns are involved. The court reiterated that Sections 232 and 233 of the Act, and the 1996 Rules, empower the licensing authority (Secretary/President) to consider applications while following statutory procedures and not to abdicate power to the Grama Sabha by policy resolutions. It clarified that a report by a Recognized Qualified Person (RQP) cannot be binding or determinative in granting licenses, though it may illuminate issues like hazards, and that environmental clearance under the 2016 notification and DM Act provisions may be required for certain clusters. While upholding the need to consider environmental and disaster-related requirements, the court partly allowed the appeals and modified the Single Judge’s direction, directing processing of applications within prescribed time, in accordance with statutory prescriptions, and vacating the RPQ-based direction. The judgment references Kadaplamattom and Tomy Thomas to frame the applicable legal position on the powers of Panchayats and the binding nature of expert reports.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2091 of 2017) filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the award dated 16 February 2017 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) No.1154/2010. The appellant, Pravidas, a motorcyclist, sustained serious injuries in a road accident in 2006 and claimed Rs. 2,32,000 as compensation, later reduced to Rs. 59,100 by the Tribunal after holding the appellant 50% contributory negligent. The appellant’s counsel conceded the Tribunal’s contributory-negligence finding, arguing only that the quantum awarded was inadequate, especially under heads Loss of Earning, Pain and Suffering, and Loss of Amenities. The respondents, including the insurer, admitted the policy and contended that the Tribunal’s findings and compensation were fair given the injuries. On review of Ext.A5 Final Police Report, Ext.A2 Scene Mahazar, and Exts.B1-B2 charge sheets, the court noted shared negligence by both vehicles and upheld a 50% contributory negligence finding. The High Court also addressed the notional income principle, citing Ramachandrappa and Rajani to determine an appropriate earnings figure for 2006, ultimately increasing Loss of Earning to Rs. 6,000 per month while keeping other heads unchanged. The Court directed payment of the enhanced amount with 9% interest by the insurer and awarded proportionate costs. The judgment is delivered by Justice Dev Ramachandran.
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition (RC Rev No. 28 of 2023) arising from eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petitioner-tenant challenged the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s dismissal of its appeal (RCA No.57 of 2015), which had upheld eviction orders issued by the Rent Control Court in RCP No.86 of 2012 under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord to recover the petition schedule building for his son-in-law’s wholesale and retail grocery and stationery business. The landlord contended that the need was genuine and that the tenant, a firm, could not invoke certain protections. The tenant argued lack of bona fide need, the absence of permission to demolish a partition wall, and that the landlord may be seeking to lease to third parties at higher rent, with no suitable alternative building available locally. Evidence included PW1’s testimony (landlord’s son-in-law) and the existence of other spaces and godowns owned by the landlord, with Commission Report Ext.C1 supporting occupancy by the tenant of multiple rooms. The High Court ultimately affirmed the appellate judgment, concluding there was no illegality in upholding eviction and that Provisos to Section 11(3) did not advantage the tenant. The revision is dismissed with interlocutory applications, if any, closed.
The petitioner, a firm engaged in the sale of mobile phones and other delicate electronic goods, contends that loading and unloading of such articles must be performed by trained and skilled personnel rather than the headload workers’ unions. Relying on this Court’s decisions in Safa System Solutions v. Station House Officer, Palarivattom, and A. Balakrishnan v. Circle Inspector of Police, the petitioner asserts that electronic articles are fragile and require skilled handling. It alleges obstruction by respondents 4–6 (unions) who claim the right to handle goods and bar the petitioner’s employees from performing loading/unloading, thereby constraining lawful business. The petitioner had approached the first respondent SHO and sought police protection; this court had previously issued an interim direction (10.09.2021) for protection to load/unload with the petitioner’s own staff. The bench notes that Safa System Solutions and Balakrishnan are binding precedents in this Court, and the court records that the area is under a Kerala Headload Workers Act scheme, yet follows the view that delicate electronic articles must be handled by trained personnel. The court ultimately allows the writ petition, directing the SHO to provide adequate protection and to ensure law and order in the relevant area, thereby enabling the petitioner’s business to operate without hindrance.
WA Nos. 241/2016, 379/2016, 1770/2016, 1891/2016 The judgment deals with four writ appeals challenging orders of the Kerala High Court on concessional tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for sales to Lakshadweep authorities and related entities. The petitioners-dealers sought a 4% concessional rate under the proviso to Section 6(1) read with Rule 12C of the KVAT Rules, arguing that furnishing Form No.42 and a buyer-declaration should suffice, and that production of shipping bills or port-attested documents could be impossible in some cases. The Revenue contends that concessional taxation is available only when the sale is to the enumerated entities (Administrator, LT Lakshadweep; Laccadive Co-operative Marketing Federation; Lakshadweep Harbour Works; or certified dealers) and only after satisfying all Rule 12C conditions, including the shipping documents. The learned Single Judge’s view was to some extent aligned with the dealer’s argument, but the Division Bench overruled the dictum in Al Mahamood and held that Rule 12C requirements are mandatory. The judgment sets aside the Single Judge’s order and allows the writ appeals, directing reassessment upon furnishing documents, and grants liberty to dealers to obtain shipment proofs from Lakshadweep authorities within prescribed time-limits. It reinforces a literal approach to Section 6(1) proviso and cautions against diluting documentary requirements, while providing a practical pathway for reassessment.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award under OPMV 826/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, seeking compensation for the death of late Anand, who was involved in a scooter accident on 28.10.2014. The appellants, the parents of the deceased, contended that the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 12,76,000 of the claimed Rs. 15,85,000, and erred by fixing the deceased’s notional income at Rs. 4,500 per month despite evidence that he earned Rs. 15,000 monthly as an electrician. At 19 years of age, they argued that future prospects at 40% ought to be added, which would substantially increase dependency compensation. The insurer argued that the deceased was a student with no income. The High Court examined the evidence, applying the Ramachandrappa standard to determine notional income (Rs. 9,500 per month) for 2014 and, with 40% future prospects and a 50% deduction for personal expenses, computed a higher loss of dependency. The court also relied on Satinder Kaur to strike down the Tribunal’s Rs. 10,000 award for pain and suffering. The result is a partial relief for the appellants: enhancement of dependency compensation to Rs. 14,36,400, deletion of pain and suffering, and a direction to pay enhanced amounts with 8% interest from filing, excluding 214 days of delay, with deposit within two months. The decision preserves other heads of compensation.
This Cr.M.C. concerns the petitioner Shameer Babu M challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings in Crime No. 926/2016 of Ottapalam Police Station, pending as C.C. 411/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam. The petition highlights that the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, Reshma Maneed, solemnised on 22.12.2021, was followed by a strained relationship and a matrimonial dispute arising under IPC Sections 498A and 354 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner contends that several related matters between the parties were settled amicably through mediation (Annexure-A8), with the defacto complainant agreeing to withdraw the criminal case and no objection to quashing the pending proceedings. Annexures show Family Court proceedings (OP 174/2017 and OP 337/2017), with mediation forming part of a decree (Annexures A9–A11) and a sworn affidavit from the defacto complainant (Annexure A12) supporting quashing. Although the defacto complainant initially challenged the mediation, she ultimately consented to quashing. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, the Court notes the principle that disputes with civil/matrimonial flavour can be resolved by quashing criminal proceedings upon settlement. The Public Prosecutor advised no objection, and the Court concluded continued proceedings would be an abuse of process, granting the Cr.M.C. and quashing the proceedings.
Jinto Paul C., a 17-year-old pupil at the time of the accident on 28 May 2017, sustained severe injuries after the bus driven rashly struck him as he walked along the road. He filed OP(MV) No.1957/2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, seeking compensation of Rs. 3,75,000 (limited to Rs. 3,70,000); the Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,53,300, which the appellant challenged as inadequate. His counsel pressed that notional income should be higher than the Tribunal’s Rs. 11,500, and that future prospects must be included. He also contended that the disability percentage certified by the Medical Board (Ext.C1) is 25%, not 20% as adopted by the Tribunal, and that the heads of Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities warranted larger sums in light of the injuries. The respondents’ counsel argued that the Tribunal’s computations were correct and that the appellant had been properly compensated. The High Court, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager (Supreme Court) to recognize notional income with future prospects, upheld an enhanced framework: Rs. 11,500 notional income with 10% future prospects, retaining Ext.C1’s 25% disability, and increasing awards for Pain and Suffering to Rs. 50,000 and Loss of Amenities to Rs. 30,000. The appeal was partly allowed, with updated sums and interest adjustments, directing deposit by the insurer and costs to be borne by the insurer on the enhanced amount.
The petitioner, Sajeesh S., sought removal of his 2.02 acres of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, challenging Ext.P7, which rejected his Form-5 application. He asserts the land—a pakka-filled Nilam with vegetation and adjacent houses—was not a paddy land at the time the Act came into force and that his inclusion in the Life Mission Project (Ext.P6) underscores the need for re-evaluation. The LLMC’s decision to retain the land in the Data Bank formed the basis of the denial, but the petitioner argues the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) must independently assess the land’s nature as on 24.12.2008 and not simply rely on the LLMC. The judgment traces a line of Kerala High Court decisions emphasizing (i) the Data Bank should contain cultivable paddy land and wetlands as of 24.12.2008, (ii) the decisive factor is whether the land could be paddy land on the Act’s onset, and (iii) that RDO should use scientific data (including KSRSEC satellite data) if needed. The court sets aside Ext.P7 and directs the RDO to reassess Form-5, calling for KSRSEC reports if necessary, and to decide within specified timelines, taking into account the Life Mission Project status and the cautions laid down by precedent.
This writ petition concerns correction of the Basic Tax Register (BTR) for land allotment under the Elamkulam West Town Planning Scheme. The petitioners, T.V. Lakshman and Sujani Vasudevan, co-owners of a land parcel allotted by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (G.C.D.A.), contend that though a residential building was constructed after being allocated under the Town Planning Scheme, the BTR still describes the land as Nilam rather than Purayidam. They produced documents including an Elamkulam West Town Planning Scheme certificate and a sale deed, asserting that the scheme designated the land for residential purposes long ago. On 05.12.2022 they filed for correction of the BTR, arguing that correction is permissible under established law and that the State cannot now insist on Nilam. They rely on several Kerala judgments that permit adjusting BTR entries to reflect current tenure within the Town Planning framework, and oppose delays in correction. The respondents’ counsel conceded that the issue is covered by several judgments in petitioners’ favour. The court, after examining Reliance Industries Ltd., Shaji Chacko, LLMC Mariyumma, and Binu Mathew Chacko, directed corrective measures. The petition is disposed of with a mandate to reflect Purayidam in the BTR forthwith and to consider applying S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for tax purposes.
Cont.Case (C) No. 324 of 2020 This Contempt of Court case (Civil) No. 324 of 2020 arises out of a writ petition judgment and pertains to alleged willful disobedience of directions in Annexure A1 dated 25 February 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 8051 of 2017 and connected matters, and the subsequent Supreme Court orders in SLP No. 9610/2019. The petitioners, who are petitioners 1, 2 and 4–23 in W.P.(C) No. 8051 of 2017, allege non-compliance by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) with the directions regarding pension entitlements under the EPF pension scheme, especially after the 2014 amendments effected by G.S.R. 609(E). The Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. held the 2014 notification legal and valid and laid down directions to adjust the scheme in light of post-amendment provisions and prior options, including references to R.C. Gupta. In view of that decision, the court directed EPFO to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension and disposed of the contempt case accordingly, with the directive that the reconsideration should be undertaken in accordance with law. The order closes the Contempt Case, while preserving EPFO’s right to revisit pension entitlements under the 2022 judgment guidance.
W.P.(C) Nos.29886 & 29957 of 2021 These two writ petitions challenge Ext.P2 notices issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer demanding payment of a fee for change of nature of land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners own dry land in Pananchery Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District, planted with coconut trees long before the Act, and their land was not included in the Data Bank. They had filed Rule 12(1) applications seeking to change the land’s nature in revenue records. The notices demanded a fee at 10% of the land’s fair value, computed on the basis of adjacent properties. The petitioners contend that under Section 27A of the Act, 2008, the fee must be determined solely on the basis of the fair value of the land involved, as fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and that using neighboring land values is arbitrary and illegal. The Government Pleader argued that fair value is defined under Section 2(viA) as the value fixed under Section 28A or the value of a similar land, making neighboring land values permissible. The court relied on earlier judgments (Vincent (Dr) v. RDO; Ajith Kumar Shenoy) that the fee must be the subject land’s fair value, not a neighboring land value. Consequent to these authorities, the petitions are allowed; Ext.P2 is quashed. The 1st respondent is to compute the fee on the basis of the subject property’s fair value as on the date of submission, for each application.
W.P.(C) No. 33998 of 2022 This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Ext.P7, the re-tender notification dated 18-10-2022 for the kuthaka rights known as 'Vedi Vazhipadu' at Sabarimala Devaswom. The petitioner, holder of Ext.P2 licence (Form LE-1) issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur, had participated in the re-tender for the item during the Mandala-Makaravilakku Maholsavam and claimed to be the highest bidder for 1198 ME (2022-23) with bid of Rs.5,28,528 (Rs.6,23,663 with GST). She contends the re-tender is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, and seeks mandamus to pause the re-tender, grant her the right to conduct Vedi Vazhipadu if she remains the highest bidder, and direct issuing authority to grant a Form LE-2 licence based on her Ext.P6 application. The petition argues the re-tender deviates from the eligibility criteria and undermines her rights. The court examines past auctions: 2016-17 Rs.16,00,000; 2017-18 Rs.16,25,000; 2019-20 Rs.4,20,000; 2021-22 Rs.3,90,000, with Covid-era restrictions affecting earlier years. It concludes the Travancore Devaswom Board has a fiduciary duty under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act to maximize income and manage the Devaswom for devotees, citing decisions like M.V. Ramasubbiar, Abu K.S., T. Krishnakumar and Suneesh K.S. The petition is dismissed; Ext.P7 proceeds strictly according to the original eligibility criteria and general conditions, leaving other contentions open.
Petitioner, the Kazhakkoottam Kulangara Sree Krishna Swamy Temple Advisory Committee, challenges Ext.P1 (22.02.2017) of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which resolved to enter into an agreement with the Tourism Department for constructing a hall, cafeteria, amphitheatre, and related facilities to be used as a pilgrim amenities centre on temple land. The writ petition seeks certiorari to quash Ext.P1 and to mandamus the Board not to use temple property for non-temple purposes, alleging violations of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. Interim orders stayed further actions under Ext.P1, and impleadment of the Palace Nagar Residents Association as additional respondent followed. The record reveals competing affidavits regarding land title: initial material treated the site as Devaswom property, later affidavits described it as a ‘puramboke’ land; the court highlighted inconsistency and warned of potential contempt under the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 1795). In 2022, government orders cancelled administrative sanction for the project, and the Board stated it had no intention to proceed. The court disposed of the petition, setting aside Ext.P1 and noting the government’s cancellation, thereby preserving temple property for temple purposes.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 613 OF 2022 Contempt Case No.613 of 2022 together with W.P.(C) Nos.7162/2018 and 18766/2022 arises from proceedings concerning the inclusion of the petitioner’s land in a data bank maintained by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and related land-management issues, including an irrigation water channel traversing the property. The High Court had previously disposed W.P.(C) No.7162/2018 by setting aside Ext.P6, directing the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application in light of this Court’s decisions in Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector (2020) 2 KLT 192 and Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram (2021) 6 KHC 316, and strictly on the basis of the KSREC report and the land’s actual nature, holding that the land should not be rejected merely for being low-lying or waterlogged. In the Contempt petition, statements by respondents were placed on record and an Advocate Commissioner’s report was filed. After negotiations, the parties reached a consensus: retain the existing water channel within the petitioner’s southern land and treat that area as paddy land, while removing the remainder from the data bank. The Contempt Case and WP( C ) 18766/2022 were disposed of directing the LLMC to pass orders in this line and to undertake a survey through the Taluk Surveyor in the petitioner’s presence within one month, enabling further action before the Revenue Divisional Officer as directed by Ext.P3 and the earlier judgments.
WP(C) Nos. 28461/2018 & con. cases The judgment consolidates a batch of writ petitions filed by KSRTC employees (drivers, conductors, and mechanics) challenging termination or regularisation issues arising from a legacy framework of provisional empanelment and bipartite settlement dated 2008, and government orders governing regularisation. The Court traces the sequence: 2008 bipartite settlement; 2011 Government order requiring ten years of service; 2012 KSRTC order adding 120 days of duty per year; 2013 Government clarification and 2013/2018 orders; subsequent Supreme Court interventions in Suresh Kumar vs State of Kerala (2013) and civil appeals in 2017 allowing imposition of the 120-days condition; 2018 KSRTC terminations based on those conditions; and the 2022 judgment by Justice Devan Ramachandran addressing the legality of such terminations. The High Court ultimately holds that the impugned orders terminating the petitioners’ services are set aside. It directs KSRTC to provide a hearing, allow production of documents to establish ten years’ service and 120 days of duty up to 21.12.2011, and to regularise those who satisfy the twin criteria within specified timeframes. Pensionary rights and benefits are to be considered for eligible petitioners. The decision underscores the binding effect of Supreme Court pronouncements (Article 141) and clarifies the prospective effect of government orders on already-regularised employees.
