Sukumaran K.K vs Ankamaly Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 2445 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.1642 OF 2021(E)


PETITIONER:

                SUKUMARAN K.K
                AGED 57 YEARS
                DRIVER, ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY, ANKAMALY, P.B. NO. 30,
                683 572, ANKAMALY, ERNAKULAM 683 572.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
                SMT.APARNA RAJAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
                ANKAMALY P.B. NO. 30, 683 572.

      2         THE SECRETARY,
                ANKAMALY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
                ANKAMALY, P.B. NO. 30,
                683 572.




                SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1642 OF 2021                2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is working as

a Driver in the services of the 1st respondent

- Municipality and that he was engaged on

temporary basis from the year 2000 onwards.

2. The petitioner asserts that he is

entitled to get his service reqularized with

effect from the date of appointment, subject

to the seniority and that he has preferred

Ext.P11 representation seeking such benefits.

He alleges that, however, no action has been

taken on Ext.P11 as of now and prays that

same be directed to be taken up and disposed

of by the Secretary of the Municipality at the

earliest.

3. In response to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by his

learned counsel, Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas, the

learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality,

Shri.P.P.Thajudeen, submitted that if the

petitioner only requires Ext.P11

representation be taken up and disposed of,

there is no legal impediment in the same being

done, but prayed that this Court may not make

any affirmative declaration as to the

entitlement of the petitioner to any relief

and leave it to be decided by the competent

Authority, in terms of law.

            4.   When           I        consider           the         afore

      submissions,         it    is     without    doubt         that    even

      though     the       petitioner           has     made        various

      allegations          and      averments          in        this     Writ

Petition, same cannot be looked into by this

Court on its merits at this stage because,

admittedly, he has invoked his alternative

remedy by preferring Ext.P11 representation

before the 2nd respondent. I am, therefore, of

the firm view that said Authority must be

directed to dispose of the same as per law.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent -

Secretary of the Municipality to take up

Ext.P11 representation of the petitioner and

dispose of the same, after affording him an

opportunity of being heard - either physically

or through video conferencing - thus

culminating in an appropriate order thereon,

as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/23.1.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. (MS) 14/82/LBR DATED 22.04.1982.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) 91/2001 DATED 29.03.2001.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM TO ALL THE SECRETARIAT OF MUNICIPALITY DATED 4.12.10.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM DATED 07.12.2010

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2014.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM DATED 23.01.2014.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TVM O THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.02.2014.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.16.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.

996/2018 DATED 05.02.2018.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. HI-7005/06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 16.10.18.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.20. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL