Kerala High Court
A.P.Ummer vs The Administrator on 4 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.1490 OF 2021(I)
PETITIONERS:
1 A.P.UMMER
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. KAREEM THEREKKAL, ALIKOTTAPURA HOUSE, DISTRICT
PANCHAYATH, KADAMATH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP-682 556.
2 P.AMANULLA
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. MUTHUKOYA HAJI, AYISHACHETTA HOUSE, DISTRICT
PANCHAYATH, KADAMATH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP-682 556.
3 KHALID K.K
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. ANAS B., KALIYAMMAKADA HOUSE, DISTRICT
PANCHAYATH, KADAMATH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP-682 556.
4 M.P.ATTAKOYA
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MIGDAD, KAILIYAMMAKADA HOUSE, DISTRICT
PANCHAYATH, KADAMATH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP-682 556.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.BASIL AJITH
SHRI.JOHN GOMEZ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ADMINISTRATOR
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP-682 5552.
2 THE SECRETARY TO PANCHAYATH
DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, LAKSHADWEEP
ADMINISTRATION, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP-682
5553.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION.
KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP-682555.
WP(C).No.1490 OF 2021(I)
2
4 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, UNION TERRITORY
OFLAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-6825555.
5 DIRECTOR
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION,
UNION TERRITORY OFLAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682
555.
OTHER PRESENT:
S. MANU CGC FOR LAKSHADWEEP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.1490 OF 2021(I)
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of March 2021
The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-
"I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any
direction or any appropriate order declaring
Exhibit P4 invalid.
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
direction or any appropriate order directing the 5"
respondent to issue orders regularising the
appointment of the petitioners.
III. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
any direction or any appropriate order directing
the 5° respondent not to disturb the appointment
of the petitioners or continue the engagement of
the petitioners as casual labourers until they
attain the age of superannuation; in the
alternative."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Lakshadweep Administration.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
WP(C).No.1490 OF 2021(I)
petitioners that the petitioners had been engaged as Casual
Labourers (cooks) by the Dweep Panchayath and they are
being employed by the 5th respondent on a rotational basis
of 89 days with a day's break. It is submitted that they have
been working as casual labourers (cooks) for the past
several years and some of them since 2001. It is submitted
that the petitioners had sought regularization in service.
However, their request may not considered. Though they
had approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.5325/2015, the
request for regularization was rejected by this Court as well.
It is submitted that thereafter, by Ext.P3 judgment, this
Court had directed a consideration of Ext.P2 representation
preferred by the petitioners which has also been rejected by
Ext.P4. It is submitted that the respondents have now
disengaged those of the petitioners, who were actually
working and that they are being rendered jobless due to the
said action of the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, after having rendered so many years of service, the
WP(C).No.1490 OF 2021(I)
petitioners are liable to at least continuous engagement, if
not regularization in service.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for Lakshadweeb
Administration submits that the petitioners were only casual
labourers, who were being appointed on rotational basis on
the recommendations issued by the Panchayath and that
they have absolutely no right to claim that they are eligible
for continuance in service or to regularization. It is submitted
that the issue of regularization had been considered in W.P.
(C) No.5325/2015 and the claim had been rejected. It is
further submitted that, in W.P.(C) No.10572/2018, the
specific claim of similarly situated employees that they
should be continued to be engaged even after the expiry of
their period for which they had been engaged was
considered. It was found that employees, who had been
specifically appointed for a term, had no right to claim
continuance, after the expiry of the terms. It is submitted
that the Mid-day Meals Scheme is not functional in the
schools in the island due to the pandemic situation and that
WP(C).No.1490 OF 2021(I)
there is no work for the casual labourers (cooks) like the
petitioners, which the reason why the order of
disengagement has been issued to the petitioners.
5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am
of the opinion that the challenge raised by the petitioners to
Ext.P4 order cannot succeed in the factual situations are
stated above. The respondents have taken note of the
contentions of the petitioners and had rejected the request
made by the petitioners in Ext.P3. The further contentions
raised by the petitioners also stand covered by the
judgments of this Court referred to above.
6. In the above view of the matter, I am of the
opinion that no directions can be issued as sought for. The
writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Bng/06.03.2021
WP(C).No.1490 OF 2021(I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER F.NO.6/5/2015-
EDN/ESTT/516 DATED 3.7.2017 OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.11.2019 OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.5.2020 IN WP(C)NO.9853/2020 OF THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.36/04/2020
EDN./307 DATED 1.6.2020 OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
F.NO.1/2/2019-EDN/DP DATED 2/2/2021 OF
THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
KAVARATTI
