David Litty vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4857 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                    WP(C).No.1632 OF 2021(D)


PETITIONER/S:

            DAVID LITTY,
            AGED 51 YEARS
            S/O.ABEL, CHANNEL ROAD ARIKATHU VEEDU, KAROODU P.O.,
            KALIVILAAKAM, NEYYATTINKARA,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695506.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.C.S.MANILAL
            SRI.S.NIDHEESH
            SHRI.ACHUT M NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     THE STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT(A),
            DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2     KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
            REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
            BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

      3     THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
            KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
            NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.

      4     THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
            KSRTC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.




            SR.GP K.P HARISH

            SC SRI.T.P SAJAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1632 OF 2021(D)

                                       2




                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein who has been engaged as a

daily wages casual labourer since 2000, seeks

regularisation of his service. When the matter was

taken up, the learned standing counsel for the KSRTC

submitted that at present there is no proposal pending

before the KSRTC for regularisation of any employees

and further the petitioner is a casual labourer and not

appointed against any substantive vacancy.

2. It seems that his representation for

consideration of his above claim was rejected, against

which he has preferred Ext.P6 review petition before the

first respondent. In the light of the present situation, I

am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a

direction to the first respondent to take up and consider

Ext.P6 in the light of the contentions set up therein and

also the relevant Government Orders/Rules in

accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from WP(C).No.1632 OF 2021(D)

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.1632 OF 2021(D)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.5/2001/TRAN.

DATED 15.02.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.78/2011/TRAN DATED 22.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.LR8/001807/11 DATED 01.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.08.2014 IN WP(C) 22641 OF 2014.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.33/2015/TRAN DATED 20.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 15.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MANORAMA DATED 12.01.2021.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL