Kannan. P.A vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5214 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
  FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944
                 WP(C) NO. 29091 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

    1    KANNAN. P.A.,
         AGED 30 YEARS
         S/O. LATE ANANDAN, MEKKATTU PARAMBU HOUSE,
         KIZAKKEPRAM, ATHANI, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN
         683 513.
    2    SETHU MANOHARAN P,
         AGED 30 YEARS
         S/O. LATE MANOHARAN, POKKATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         NAMBIATTUKUNNAM, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683
         513.
    3    SHIBU MATHAI,
         AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O. LATE MATHAI, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         KOTTAKKAPPALLY, PERUMPADANNA, N. PARAVUR,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 513.
    4    DILEEP KUMAR K.G,
         AGED 58 YEARS
         S/O. K. GOPALAN, KUMMAPPILLY HOUSE, THOITHARA,
         N. PARAVU, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 513
         BY ADVS.
         BABU KARUKAPADATH
         M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
         P.U.VINOD KUMAR
         ARYA RAGHUNATH
         VAISAKHI V.
         T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ
         MOHAMED HISHAM P
         KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
         P.LAKSHMI
         AISWARYA ANN JACOB

RESPONDENT/S:

    1    STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
         001
    2    SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF- GOVERNMENT,
 W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

                              -2-


            GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
            001
     3      THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
            DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
     4      PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,
            MUNICIPAL JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR,
            PIN 683 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
     5      THE SECRETARY,
            PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL JUNCTION, MAIN
            ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 513.
            BY ADV ANOOP.V.NAIR

OTHER PRESENT:

            GP VENUGOPAL V

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.03.2022, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

                                     -3-



                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022

The petitioners were engaged as casual

labourers for doing sanitation works in the

fourth respondent Municipality with effect from

01.05.2013, 01.05.2017, 08.05.2017 and 21.05.2017

respectively. While so, on 30.11.2021, the

petitioners were informed that they need not

report for duty from 01.12.2021 onwards.

According to the petitioners, the attempt of the

Municipality is to replace them with another

batch of casual labourers. Relying on the

decision in Hameshdas K.H and others v. The State

of Kerala and others [2021(3) ILR (Ker.) 456],

the petitioners contend that being CLR workers,

they are entitled for regularisation. In the writ

petition, the petitioners are seeking the

following reliefs;

"(i) Issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents 4 and 5 to continue to engage the W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

petitioners as Casual Labourers and to take immediate steps to regularise them in service.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the respondents, not to terminate the service of the petitioners and to regularise them in service of the 4th respondent by following the procedure laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 2021 (3) ILR (Kerl) 456.

(iii) Direct the 4th and 5th respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection, if at all the 4th respondent intends to conduct fresh selection, to select persons to replace the petitioners, by permitting the petitioners to continue till the selection process is completed."

2. Adv.M.A.Vaheedha Babu, learned Counsel

for the petitioners submitted that, while the

Municipal Council discontinued the service of

the petitioners, their juniors are allowed to

continue. It is submitted that various other

Municipalities and Corporations having taken

steps to regularise the service of casual

labourers, the fourth respondent is also bound to

initiate such action in the light of the decision W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

in Hameshdas and others.

3. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent

Municipality submitted that 40 permanent

sanitation workers and 7 substitute sanitation

workers recruited through Employment Exchange are

carrying out the sanitation works in the

Municipality. Earlier, vide resolution dated

2.03.2013, the Municipal Council had approved the

recommendations of the Health Standing Committee

to hire temporary/contract workers on CLR basis.

The petitioners were appointed on the basis of

the said decision and were allowed to continue in

the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and related

issues. Taking into account the financial

difficulty faced by the Municipality and

reduction in the workload of sanitation workers,

the fourth respondent Municipality, as per

resolution No.12 dated 20.11.2021, had decided to

disengage the CLR workers and not to engage any

temporary/contract employees in their place.

Consequently, on 01.12.2021, the petitioners were W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

informed about the decision and requested not to

report for duty. It is submitted that the

Municipality is having sufficient number of

permanent sanitation workers and substitute

sanitation workers appointed through Employment

Exchange for meeting its sanitation requirements.

It is contended that having been relieved and the

post of CLR workers abolished, the petitioners

cannot aspire for regularisation on the strength

of the judgment in Hameshdas.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners

submitted that, after disengaging the

petitioners, the respondent Municipality has

appointed other sanitation workers and hence, the

submissions made on behalf of the Municipality

lack bona fides.

5. Learned Standing Counsel clarified that,

persons engaged after relieving the petitioners

are substitute sanitation workers appointed

through the Employment Exchange.

6. Indisputably the petitioners, who were W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

engaged on temporary/contractual basis, were

disengaged with effect from 01.12.2021. The

disengagement is based on resolution No.12 of the

Municipal Council dated 20.11.2021. The said

resolution is not under challenge in this writ

petition. Moreover, the decision was taken in

view of the adverse financial condition of the

Municipality and reduction in sanitation works

due to subsiding of the surge in Covid cases.

7. The fact that after disengaging the

petitioners, the Municipality has appointed

sanitary workers through Employment Exchange will

not give rise to a fresh cause of action for the

petitioners. As contended by the Standing

Counsel, as per the directives of the Government,

engagement of casual workers can only be through

Employment Exchange.

8. The decision in Hameshdas was rendered

in the context of the petitioners therein, who

were workers included in the Daily Labour Rolls

(DLR) of the Thrissur Corporation, having W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

continued in service for more than a decade and

the Corporation itself having sought the

Government's permission to regularise their

service. The petitioners' case being entirely

different, Hameshdas cannot be relied on for

compelling this court to issue a writ of mandamus

directing the Municipality to regularise the

service of the petitioners.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ W.P.(C) No.29091 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29091/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER , EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER IT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER, EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER IT.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE 3RD PETITIONER, EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER ITS.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE 4TH PETITIONER , EVIDENCING THAT HE IS WORKING AS CASUAL LABOURERS UNDER IT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 2.3.2022 RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY UNDER THE RTI ACT.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 2.2.2022 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO-213/2022 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 2.3.2022 SUBSEQUENTLY FILED BY T HE 5TH RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO- 213/2022 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE.