Kerala High Court
A. Santhosh vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 5 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
W.P.(C) NO.5789 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
A. SANTHOSH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN PILLAI,
DRIVER GRADE-II, K.S.R.T.C., CHADAYAMANGALAM DEPOT AND
RESIDING AT ANANDA BHAWAN, KUTTIKADU-P.O., KADAKKAL,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 536
BY ADVS.
N.UNNIKRISHNAN
JAYACHANDRAN C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
2 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 023
4 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 506
5 THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C,
CHADAYAMANGALAM DEPOT, CHADAYAMANGALAM, PIN - 691 534
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WPC. No. 5789/2024
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 5th April, 2024) The petitioner joined the service of the respondent as a Driver on 15.05.2000 and continued till regularization as Driver Grade-II with effect from 22.12.2011. Regularisation was ordered to those employees who have put in 8 years of service with 120 duties per year, which was modified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the year 2018, whereby the pre-condition was modified to 10 years of service with 120 duties per year. The 2nd respondent thereafter issued an order on 02.05.2018 cancelling the regularization, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.15921 of 2018 and this court by Ext.P4 judgment dated 16.08.2022 quashed the impugned orders and directed reconsideration. While disposing of the above case, specific directions were given in paragraph 21 of Ext.P4.
2. The case of the petitioner is that without complying with the directions issued by this Court and without giving an opportunity of hearing, the 2nd respondent has passed an order holding that on verification of the records it was found that none of the petitioners are completed 10 years of service with 120 duties per year as on 21.12.2011 and therefore the 3 WPC. No. 5789/2024 regularization of the petitioner was cancelled with immediate effect. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned standing counsel and Smt.Mary Beena Joseph, learned Government Pleader.
4. Paragraphs 5 and 6 in W.P.(C)No.42624 of 2023 reads as follows:
"5. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer, stating that Ext.P1 was issued on 11.09.2023; therefore, there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this court, and, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief.
6. A perusal of Ext.P5 common judgment would make it clear that the corporation was directed to give the opportunity to the petitioners to verify the contents of the service books, voucher of payment, attendance register, check sheet register, cash counter register, rack issue register, etc., to prove that they have completed 120 days per year up to 21.12.2011. As per the directions, contained in Clause (c) of paragraph 21 of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.28461 of 2018 and connected cases, the respondents ought to have given access to the documents in the possession of the corporation".
5. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the main reason for rejection is the petitioners could not substantiate that they have completed 10 years of service with 120 duties per year with reliable and authentic documents.
6. Though it is stated that they have been given an opportunity from 25.10.2023 to 28.10.2023 to verify the available documents, nothing is 4 WPC. No. 5789/2024 said about those documents. Though the petitioner has produced Ext.P5, which according to the petitioner are consolidated statements of duty, the same is not taken into consideration by the respondents. On a perusal of Ext.P1, I am satisfied that the directions issued by this court in Ext.P4 are not strictly complied with by the respondents. Therefore, Ext.P1 will stand quashed and the competent authority is directed to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.15921 of 2018, and connected cases and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss 5 WPC. No. 5789/2024 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5789/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER NO. PL 16/004985/2017 ( A&V A2 ) DATED 03.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO. PL 12/025739/2008 DATED 12.02.2016 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO. E2/706/16/CDLM DATED 08.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.15921/2018 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF ATTENDANCE DETAILS ALONG WITH BREAK-UP DETAILS OF ATTENDANCE OF THE PETITIONER ROM 15.05.2000 TO 29.12.2011 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO. A& V A2/007202/23 DATED 25.10.2023 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2024 IN W.P. (CIVIL) NO.42624/2023