Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2021
(C.R.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 203/2019 DATED 10-10-2019 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION)
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.B.VINOD
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:
PRADEEP.P., AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT PREETHA NIVAS,
(FROM PUNNAVILA VEEDU)
PERUMPUZHA CHERY, ELAMAPALLOR VILLAGE,
KOLLAM TALUK, PERUMPUZHA P.O, KOLLAM 691 504
WORKING AS DIESAL MECHANIC EMPLOYED AS AN
HR EMPLOYEE IN OFFICE OF THE DREDGER SUB DIVISION,
KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
2
(C.R.)
ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R.RAVI, JJ.
=============================
O.P (KAT) No.242 of 2020
[Arising out of order dated 10.10.2019
in O.A.No.203 of 2019 of KAT, Tvm. Bench]
=============================
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows: (see page
No.8 of the paper book of this O.P.)
"1. To set aside the Exhibit P5 Order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in
O.A.203/2019.
2. To dismiss the Exhibit P1 Original Application No.203/2019 filed by the
Respondent before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, holding that the
Respondent is not eligible for any of the reliefs claimed in the Exhibit P1
Original Application.
3. To declare that the Respondent is not eligible to get appointed as SLR
Workers declared by the Tribunal in Exhibit P5 Impugned Order of the
Tribunal.
Any other order or direction as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri.B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. and
Sri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the
O.P./sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal.
3. The original applicant (respondent herein) has filed Ext.P1 O.A.
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
No.203/2019 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram
Bench, with the following prayers (see page Nos.20 and 21 of the paper
book):
"i. To call for the records leading to Annexure A2 and set aside the same in so far
as it rejects the claim of the Applicant for regularization as SLR worker.
ii. To direct the Respondents to regularize the service of the Applicant as SLR
worker with effect from the date of Annexure A3 dated 16.01.2013 taking note
of Annexure A1 Service Certificate and Annexure A14 the list of HR/CLR
workers of Irrigation Department who have completed 500 days and 10
years service on 01.01.2011 who are eligible for regularization of service.
iii. Any other appropriate Order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice."
4. The petitioners [State of Kerala and the Chief Engineer,
Irrigation & Administration)] concerned have approached this Court by
initiating the instant proceedings seeking the invocation of this Court's
extra ordinary discretionary powers of judicial review and judicial
superintendence vested under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India, so as to impugn Ext.P5 final order dated 10.10.2019 rendered by the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, allowing the
pleas in O.A.No.203/2019 and directing that the original applicant is
entitled to be regularized and included in the Seasonal Labour Roll (SLR),
in terms of the scheme framed by the competent authority of the State
Government in the Water Resources Department as per Annexure A3 G.O.
(MS) No.06/2013/WRD dated 16.01.2013. It is this order at Ext.P5 final
order, rendered by the Tribunal in the above O.A., that is under challenge
in this Original Petition.
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
5. The original applicant has been engaged as a Hand Receipt
Worker (HR worker) in the Dry Dock workshop, Alappuzha and also the
Dredger Sub Division at Ernakulam under the erstwhile Irrigation
Department, which comes under the administrative control of the
Government in the Water Resources Department. The applicant has been
engaged as Hand Receipt (HR) Laborer/worker during various spells for
the period from 1995 to 2015 in these institutions. Later, the competent
authority of the State Government in the Water Resources Department has
issued Annexure A3 G.O.(MS) No.06/2013/WRD dated 16.01.2013,
whereby a scheme has been framed for regularization of HR
laborers/workers, like the original applicant, as SLR (Seasonal Labour
Roll) subject to the conditions to be satisfied in the said G.O. A reading of
Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013 would clearly indicate that one of the
conditions envisaged in paragraph 3(c) on internal page 2 of Annexure A3
G.O. is that HR/CLR workers like the petitioner should have received
festival allowances for all the years concerned during the period of work,
apart from the other conditions. The 4 conditions proposed as per
paragraph No.3 Clauses (a) to (e) of Annexure A3 G.O. are as follows:
"(a) The worker should have completed at least 500 days of employment as on the
cut off date of 01.01.2011.
(b) He/she should have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2011.
(c) The worker should have received festival allowances for all the years
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
concerned during the period of work.
(d) They should be existing HR/CLR workers as on the date of issuance of
Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013 .
(e) The worker should not have exceeded the upper age limit of 58 years as on
01.01.2011."
6. After considering the various aspects of the matter, the
competent authority of the State Government in the Water Resources
Department has only stipulated that 4 out of the said 5 conditions alone
need be fulfilled for the HR/CLR worker to get the benefit of regularization
to be included as SLR. This aspect of the matter is crystal clear from a
mere reading of para 9 Clauses (a) to (d) thereof given on internal page
No.5 of Annexure A3 G.O.. The 5 conditions stipulated in paragraph No.9
given on page No.5 of Annexure A3 G.O. are as follows:
"(a) The HR/CLR worker should have worked at least for 500 days as on the cut
off date of 01.01.2011.
(b) The worker should have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2011.
(c) The worker should be an existing HR/CLR worker presumably meaning
thereby that the worker should have been actually working as HR/CLR
worker as on the date of issuance of Annexure A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013.
(d) The worker should not have exceeded the upper age of 58 years as on the cut
off date of 01.01.2011."
7. Thus a comparison of para No.3 Clauses (a) to (e) given on
internal page 2 of Annexure A3 with the conditions actually imposed as
paragraph No.9 Clauses (a) to (d) given on internal page 5 of Annexure A3
G.O. would make it clear like the day light that the competent authority of
the State Government in the Water Resources Department, after
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
considering the proposal and taking into consideration various relevant
aspects of the matter, has consciously decided not to insist on one of the 5
conditions mentioned in paragraph 3 viz., the condition that the worker
should have necessarily obtained and received festival allowances for all the
years concerned during his period of work. The reason for deleting the
condition proposed in para 3(d), is discernible from a mere reading of
paragraph No.8 of Annexure A3 G.O., which reads as follows;
"(8) ധനകകാരര്യ വകുപപ്പ് നനിഷ്കരപ്പ്രനിച്ച പ്രകകാരരം ഈ കകാലയളവനിൽ എലകാ
വർരവരം ഫഫെസനിവൽ അലവൻസപ്പ് ലഭനിച്ച ഫതകാഴനിലകാളനികഫള വവണരം
അർഹതകാലനിസനിൽ ഉൾഫപടുതകാൻ എനപ്പ് സർകകാർ നനിർവദേശനിച്ചനിരുന. എനകാൽ
പരനിവശകാധന സമയതപ്പ് ടനി വകുപനിഫല സരംസകാനഫത മുഴുവൻ എചപ്പ് .ആർ
/സനി.എൽ.ആർ വനിഭകാഗരം ജജീവനകകാർകരം ഉത്സവബത നൽകനിയതകായനി
കകാണുനനില എനരം പല ഓഫെജീസുകളനിലരം പലതരതനിലള്ള സകാവങ്കേതനിക
തടസ്സങ്ങൾ പറഞ്ഞുഫകകാണപ്പ് ഉത്സവബത ലഭനികനതനിൽ നനിനരം നനിരവധനി
ഫതകാഴനിലകാളനികഫള ഒഴനിവകാകനിയനിട്ടുണപ്പ് എനരം ഉത്സവബതയുഫട
അടനിസകാനതനിൽ ലനിസപ്പ് സനിരഫപടുത്തുവകാൻ വന ബുദനിമുട്ടുകൾ മനസ്സനിലകാകനി
15.11.2012-ൽ കൂടനിയ കമനിറനി ഉത്സവബതയുഫട വര്യവസ മകാതരം ഇവപകാൾ
പരനിഗണനിവകണ എനരം മറപ്പ് വര്യവസകൾ അനുസരനിചപ്പ് പടനികയുരം അവനര്യകാരണ
റനിവപകാർട്ടുരം സമർപനികനതനിനപ്പ് തജീരുമകാനനിച്ചു എനരം അതനിഫന
അടനിസകാനതനിലകാണപ്പ് സർകകാരനിനയച്ച റനിവപകാർട്ടുരം പടനികയുരം സമർപനിച്ചനിട്ടുള്ളതപ്പ്
എനരം പരനിവശകാധനകമനിറനി പനിനജീടപ്പ് പരകാമർശരം (4) പ്രകകാരരം സർകകാരനിഫന
അറനിയനിച്ചു."
It is mentioned in para No.8 supra that many of the HR/CLR workers, who
are otherwise eligible for regularization, may not have actually received the
festival allowances for various reasons and that taking into account the
recommendations of the expert committee, which had examined the
matter, there is no necessity to impose the said condition regarding actual
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
receipt of festival allowances. It appears that though the case of the
applicant for regularization in terms of Annexure A3 G.O. has been
forwarded to the competent authority of the State Government/
departmental authorities concerned, the same has not been seriously
considered, which has impelled him to approach the Tribunal by filing the
instant original application, which in turn has led to the rendering of the
impugned Ext.P5 final order dated 10.10.2019. Before the Tribunal, the
respondents therein/petitioners herein have taken the contention that the
original applicant is not eligible and entitled for getting the benefit of
regularization as per Annexure A3 G.O. on the ground that he does not
have 10 years of continuous service as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011 and
there was indeed a break in service as on 01.01.2011 and that he had only 9
years of continuous service and hence he is not eligible. The Tribunal, after
hearing both sides and after meticulous consideration of the various
conditions actually imposed in Annexure A3 G.O. has held that the
applicant fully fulfills all the 4 conditions stipulated in para No. 9 on
internal page No.5 of Annexure A3 G.O. and that instead of the minimum
500 days of work, he has indeed work for more than 710 days for the entire
period and that going by the date of birth, he has not attained the upper age
limit. It is beyond any dispute that the applicant fulfills all the 4
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
conditions stipulated in para No.9 of Annexure A3 G.O. and that the only
objection of the petitioners herein/respondents is that he does not have 10
years continuous service as on the cut off date of 01.01.2011. The Tribunal
has found that such a condition that the incumbent concerned working as
HR/CLR worker should necessarily have 10 years of continuous service as
on the cut off date of 01.01.2011 is not stipulated anywhere in the operative
portion of Annexure A3 G.O. and is a condition, which is unreasonable and
unrealistic and goes beyond the various aspects, taking into consideration
by the competent authority of the State Government based on the expert
study, etc. In that regard the Tribunal is also fully fortified by a series of
other orders passed both by the Tribunal as confirmed by this Court, in a
series of similar cases.
9. By Annexure A8 final order dated 09.10.2015 rendered by the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.945/2014, the Tribunal
has overruled a similar objection of the respondents and by placing reliance
on earlier final order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1210/2013. It may be
pertinent to refer to the reasonings made by the Tribunal in the said
O.A.No.1210/2013, which have been quoted in para No.5 of Annexure A8,
which read as follows (see page Nos.36 and 37 of the paper book):
"5..........
The conditions mentioned in Annexure A1 for regularization of HR
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
workers have already been quoted by us. Now, the respondents have added one
more condition to those conditions to make the workers eligible for regulation,
this is, they should have continuous service. We think, the said stipulation is not
only irrational but, not authorized by Annexure A1. A person needs to have only
500 days service in a span of ten years between 1/1/2001 and 1/1/2011. It
means, in the year 2001 a person can have 250 days service and if he completes
250 days service in 2010, he will be eligible for regularization. But according to
the respondents, this 500 days service should be staggered throughout the ten
years period. That means, there should be a few days service in every year. We
think, the said stipulation is unjustified having regard to the nature of
employment of the persons like the applicants. They are called only as and
when work is available. So, if a person did not work during a year,, it cannot be
said that there is break of service for him. Suppose, there was work and he was
called and he did not come for work-then it can be said that there is break of
service for an HR worker. The respondents do not have any such case in the
reply statement. So, on the ground that during certain years the applicants did
not work for a day, regularization cannot be denied to them provided they
satisfied the four conditions contained in Annexure A1. Admittedly, the
applicants have satisfied all those conditions."
10. So the Tribunal as per the final order in O.A.No.1210/2013 has
held that the said grounds for rejection are unreasonable and arbitrary and
do not have any nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved by the
Scheme. The said view of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1210/2013 has been
accepted and relied on by the Tribunal in Annexure A8 final order rendered
on 09.10.2015 in O.A.(Ekm) No.945/2014. Further it appears that similar
views have been reiterated by the Tribunal overruling similar rejection
orders of the authorities concerned and thereby the authorities concerned
have thereafter accepted the verdicts of the Tribunal and have complied
with the directions therein and have ordered for regularization of the
incumbents concerned in terms of Annexure A3, as can be seen from the
endorsements made in Annexure A14, given on pages 48 to 50, wherein
reference has been made to the final orders passed by the Tribunal in the
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
matters as in O.A.No.80/2015, O.A.No.120/2014, O.A.No.714/2014,
O.A.No.102/2014 & O.A.No.1525/2013 rendered by the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal in similar cases. Similar views have been
reiterated by the Tribunal in matters as in O.A.(Ekm) No.303/2016 and
O.A.(Ekm) No.318/2016. The final order rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.
(Ekm) No. 303/2016 has been challenged by the petitioners herein by filing
O.P.(KAT) No.254/2018 before this Court. So also, the final order
rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm) No.318/2016 in similar situation
has also been challenged by the petitioners herein by filing O.P.(KAT)
No.245/2018. A Division Bench of this Court as per separate judgments
rendered on 5.07.2018 as well as on 10.07.2018 has dismissed O.P.(KAT)
No.245/2018 as well as O.P.(KAT) No.254/2018. A reading of the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.07.2018 in
O.P.(KAT) No.245/2018 [arising out of O.A.(Ekm) No.318/2016] would
clearly indicate that the Division Bench of this Court, after hearing both
sides and after meticulous consideration of the various relevant aspects and
also taking into consideration the hard realities in the very scheme of
engagement of HR (Hand Receipt)/CLR (Casual Labour Roll) workers in
Government Departments has noted that there is nothing surprising that
there could occur break in service in the engagement of such HR/CLR
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
workers and going by the very nature of the engagement of Casual Labour,
it may be seasonal in nature and also depends upon the area of the work
where they are engaged. The Division Bench of this Court in both the
above said judgments in O.P.(KAT) No.254/2018 as well as O.P.(KAT)
No.245/2018 has taken the view that the incumbent concerned has to fulfill
all the 4 eligibility conditions stipulated in para 9 of Annexure A3 G.O. and
that, apart from the said 4 conditions, the authorities cannot insist that the
incumbent concerned should also have 10 years of continuous service as on
the cut off date of 01.01.2011. It appears that none of the above said
verdicts of the Tribunal as well as that of the Division Bench of this Court
as in O.P.(KAT) No.245 of 2018 & O.P.(KAT) No.254 of 2018, etc. have
been challenged by the petitioners herein in the manner known to law and
the said view taken by the Tribunal and by this Court in a series of cases
has thus become prevalent and binding judicial view in the matter. Now
the petitioners would place reliance on a subsequent norm imposed as per
Ext.P4 G.O.(MS) No.18/2017/WRD dated 07.04.2017 whereby an
additional condition has been stipulated to the extent that the HR/CLR
workers should also have 10 years of continuous service as on the cut off
date of 01.01.2011 and further that in each of those years, the CLR/HR
worker should also have worked at least one day in a year. Admittedly, the
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
said additional condition as per Ext.P4 G.O.(MS) No.18/2017/WRD has
been introduced for the first time on 07.04.2017, long after the finalization
of the norms as per Annexure A3 G.O.(MS) No.06/2013/WRD dated
16.01.2013, which is the regularization scheme with the cut off date of
01.01.2011.
11. After hearing both sides, we are constrained to take the view
that as already opined by the Tribunal and by this Court, the said
additional conditions are not reasonable and do not have any direct nexus
sought to be achieved by the Scheme, going even by the expert study
referred to in Annexure A3 G.O. A similar condition was proposed in para
No.3 of Annexure A3 G.O. that the HR/CLR workers, apart from fulfilling
the abovesaid 4 conditions should also fulfill yet another condition that
he/she should have actually received festival allowances for all the years.
The said condition has been given up by the Governmental authorities, in
view of the discussion in para No.8 of Annexure A3 G.O. and only four
conditions have been ultimately imposed and stipulated in para No.9 as
can be seen from Clauses (a) to (d) thereof, whereby the 5 th condition
proposed in para 3 of Annexure A3 has been given a total go by. It appears
that since various HR/CLR workers had succeeded before the Tribunal in
overruling the objections raised by the petitioners, this additional condition
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
by way of the new Norm as per Ext.P4 G.O. on 07.04.2017, which is about 4
years and 3 months after the introduction of the scheme as per Annexure
A3 G.O. dated 16.01.2013. Going by the very nature of the casual and
seasonal nature of the employment, it is quite foreseeable that HR/CLR
may not get continuous employment on many an occasion due to reasons
totally beyond their control and the availability of continuous work may be
dependent on various factors including the work site, the nature of the
work, etc. Taking into account all these hard realities and taking note of
the fact that these are workers, who live by the hard din and arduous
nature of work done by their hands, and who contribute to the basic wealth
and infrastructure of the State that the competent authority of the State
Government has taken a well considered policy view that only the 4
conditions envisaged in para No.9 of Annexure A3 G.O. will alone be
insisted. Presumably, it could be only on account of adverse verdicts
suffered at the hands of the Tribunal and this Court that the new additional
norm as per Ext.P4 G.O. may have been devised. The Tribunal and this
Court have only given effect to the very intention and the scheme framed by
the Government in Annexure A3 G.O. Negative verdicts need not be seen
by the Governmental officers as a question of defeat for them and victory
for the labourer. The Tribunal and this Court are only in the realm of
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
judicial review and declaration of legal position is only on the basis of the
scheme framed by the Government. When the scheme has consciously
decided not to impose any conditions like the one now sought to be
imposed, though it was earlier proposed, as can be seen from reading of
para 3 of Annexure A3 G.O. and the 4 conditions in para No.9 of Annexure
A3 alone have been stipulated, knowing fully well the hard realities of the
nature of the Seasonal and Casual employment of these workers, it is only
to be held that the prescription now proposed to be projected cannot be
countenanced as a reasonable prescription. Both the Tribunal and this
Court have held that those conditions may not be reasonable or may not
have a reasonable nexus to the very objective sought to be achieved by the
introduction of Annexure A3 scheme. Hence we are constrained to take the
view that the abovesaid contentions of the petitioners based on Ext.P3 G.O.
cannot be countenanced. HR/CLR workers like the original applicant have
been patiently waiting in the queue to get the benefit, which has been
introduced as early as on 15.01.2013. Even now, the applicant has not been
able to enjoy the fruits of the same though he had waited for more than 8
long years.
12. We hope and trust that the competent authority of the State
Government and the Department would rise upto the occasion and to
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
ensure that justice is accorded to workers like the original applicant at least
at this late stage, instead of seeing it through the prism of victory and
defeat in adversarial litigative proceedings. The State, as the model
employer, is expected to work within the Charter of Promises adumbrated
in Part III of the Constitution of India, which lays down the Directive
Principles of State Policy and should necessarily take the proactive stand to
ensure that justice is accorded to the original applicant without any further
delay. In view of the abovesaid reasons, we hold that no grounds have been
certainly made out by the petitioners so as to interdict the well- considered
view to reconsider the view rendered by the Tribunal in this case.
However, we grant six weeks' time to the petitioners to comply with the
directions issued by the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P5 final order.
With these observations and directions, the above O.P.(KAT) will
stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
Pn
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO. 203/19 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
07.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DREDGER SUB DIVISION,
KAKKANADU ON 05-09-2012.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
07.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE DREDGER CAPTAIN,
DREDGER SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 06/2013/WRD
DATED 16-01-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DATED
19-09-2014 ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.05.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING
SUBMISSION OF ANNEXURE A5
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DULY SIGNED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF
ANNEXURE A5
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN
OA (EKM) NO.945/2014
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IE GO(RT) NO.
531/2016/WRD DATED 27-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C5-9338/2013
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
APPLICANT.
OP(KAT).No.242 OF 2020
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DATED
19-09-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN
RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE A10
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-12-2016 OF
THE APPLICANT SEEKING INFORMATION FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28-12-2016 OF
THE APPLICANT SEEKING INFORMATION FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27-01-2017 TO
ANNEXURE A9 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE OF PAGE NOS 1,8 AND 24 OF
THE LIST OF HR/CLR WORKERS OF IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT COMPLETED 500 DAYS AND 10 YEARS
SERVICES ON 01-01-2011
ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E.1.G/97 DATED
05-01-1998 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2002
ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS NO.
C5-14378/2001 DATED 20-07-2002 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO DELAY
CONDONATION ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R2(A)
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY DETAILS OF APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
30.04.2019 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 18/2017/WRD
DATED 07-04-2017
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 10-10-2019 IN
THE AFORESAID ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
