P.G. Sivaprasad vs State Of Kerala Represented By The Chief ...

Kerala High Court

P.G. Sivaprasad vs State Of Kerala Represented By The Chief ... on 21 May, 2024

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

     TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY    2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946

                        WP(C) NO. 16265 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

              P.G. SIVAPRASAD AGED 45 YEARS CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, S/O
              GOVINDAKURUP , K.S.R.T.C. MAVELIKKARA DEPOT AND
              RESIDING AT SIVAM, PERINGALA-P.O,, KAYAMKULAM,
              ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690519
              BY ADV N.UNNIKRISHNAN

RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA   REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
              TO THE              GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
     2        KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT
              BHAVAN,            EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
              023 REPRESENTED BY ITS   CHAIRMAN &MANAGING
              DIRECTOR., PIN - 695023
     3        THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE
              ROAD             TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT
              BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-., PIN - 695023
     4        THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
              CORPORATION,               MAVELIKKARA DEPOT,
              ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101
     5        THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD
              TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MAVELIKKARA DEPOT, PIN -
              690101
              SRI.DEEPU THANKAN - STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   2

WP(C) NO. 16265 OF 2024




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024

1. The Petitioner claims that he has been working in the 2 nd respondent Corporation since 14.08.2000 as Conductor. Earlier his service was regularized with effect from 22.12.2011 as Conductor Grade-II. After 6 years, his regularization was cancelled on 02.05.2018 by the 2 nd respondent. The said cancellation was interfered by this Court as per Exhibits P2 order and P3 judgment.

2. As per Ext.P3 judgment, the cancellation order was set aside and the authorities were directed to re-consider the issue after verifying the records in accordance with the directions contained in the said judgment, after granting opportunity to the petitioners to verify the records. Thereafter, in compliance with Exhibit P3 judgment, the 2 nd 3 WP(C) NO. 16265 OF 2024 respondent passed Exhibit P1 order rejecting the regularization of 42 workers, finding that as per the records they do not secure 10 years service with 120 days duty per year as on 21.12.2011.

3. One of the 42 workers in Ext.P1 namely Mr.Benoy Joseph challenged Exhibit P1 order in this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.38694 of 2023, and this Court as per Exhibit P7 judgment set aside Exhibit P1 produced herein so far as it relates to the said Mr.Benoy Joseph, finding that Exhibit P1 order was not passed in compliance with the directions contained in Exhibit P3 judgment. After quashing Exhibit P1, the competent authority was directed to re-consider the matter strictly in terms of the directions contained in Exhibit P3 judgment within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. The petitioner therein is permitted to continue in employment till fresh order is passed.

WP(C) NO. 16265 OF 2024

4. In the light of Exhibit P7 judgment, the petitioner herein is also entitled to get similar relief since the very same order was challenged in the W.P(c) leading to Exhibit P7 judgment. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition setting aside Exhibit P1 order so far as it relates to the petitioner and direct the 2 nd respondent re-consider the mater afresh strictly in accordance with the directions contained in Exhibit P3 judgment within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to continue in service till fresh order is passed by the 2nd respondent as aforesaid.

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE SSK/21/05 5 WP(C) NO. 16265 OF 2024 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16265/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PL16/004985/2017 (A & V A2) DATED 11.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM STAY ORDER DATED 03.09.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.16405/2018 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16405/2018 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.01.2023 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.PLC/01872/22/DOALP DATED 03.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. A & V A2 /007202/23 DATED 25.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2023 IN W.P. (CIVIL) NO.38694/2023 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2024 IN W.P. (C ) NO.42624/2023 (A.K. SANTHOSHKUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS) Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2024 IN W.P. (C) NO.163/2024 (RAJESH, C.V. AND FOUR OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS)