Kerala High Court
Kalpetta Municipality vs Ramesh Kumar V. *(Died) on 14 August, 2025
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 1 2025:KER:60667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 14
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA,
1947
WA NO. 1521 OF 2011
GAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2011 IN
A
WPC NO.7311 OF 2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
ALPETTA MUNICIPALITY
K
KALPETTA, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
ADV.SRI.REJI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1
AMESH KUMAR V.*(DIED)
R
CONTINGENT WORKER/TEMPORARY DRIVER,
KALEPTTA MUNICIPALITY,WAYANAD,
RESIDING AT SINDHU VILASAM,RATAKOLLI,
KALPETTA P.O, WAYANAD- 673592.
2
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695001.
3*
DDL.R3: RAMITHA,
A
W/O RAMESH KUMAR V, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT
SINDHU VILASAM RATTAKKOLLY KALPETTA P.O,
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 2 2025:KER:60667
WAYANAD-673 121.
4*
DDL.R4: RAKENDU RAMESH,
A
D/O RAMESH KUMAR V, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT
SINDHU VILASAM, RATTAKKOLLY KALPETTA P.O,
WAYANAD-673 121.
5*
DDL.R5: RITHIKA RAMESH,
A
D/O RAMESH KUMAR V, AGED 19 YEARS RESIDING AT
SINDHU VILASAM RATTAKKOLLY KALPETTA P.O,
WAYANAD-673 121.
6*
DDL.R5: THANKAMANI,
A
M/O RAMESH KUMAR V, AGED 71 YEARS RESIDING AT
SINDHU VILASAM, RATTAKKOLLY KALPETTA P.O,
WAYANAD-673 121.
*(ADDL R3 TO ADDL R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS
OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED
24/10/2024 IN IA 2/2024 IN MJC-11/2024 IN
WA-1521/2011)
Y ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
B
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS
WRIT
APPEAL
HAVING
BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
05.08.2025,
THE COURT ON 14.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 3 2025:KER:60667
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Thepresentintra-courtappealfiledunderSection5ofthe
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated
21.07.2011passedinW.P(C)No.7311of2007,wherebythelearned
Single Judgehas allowedthewritpetition.Theappellantherein
isthe1strespondentinthewritpetitionwhereastherespondent
No.1 was the petitioner and respondent No.2 remains in the
same position.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent
had filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:
" a)Issueawritofcertiorariorotherappropriatewritor
order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-8,
b)Issueawritofmandamusorotherappropriatewritor
orderdirectingthe1strespondenttoimplementExhibit
P-6, and
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 4 2025:KER:60667
c ) Be further pleasedtoissuesuchotherinterimorders
as are warranted on the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. The 1st respondentclaims tobeacontingentsanitation
worker on daily wages engaged by the appellant Municipality
from 09.12.1997 onwards. Subsequently, in view of his
professional qualifications as a driver, he was engaged todrive
thevehiclesoftheappellant.VideExt.P2GovernmentOrder,the
Government directed regularisation of contingent hands
appointed prior to 31.12.2000. But the 1st respondent was not
grantedthatbenefit.Therefore,hehadapproachedthisCourtby
filing W.P(C)No.33239 of 2005 which was finally decided vide
Ex.P5judgmentdated29.09.2006.Inthesaidwritpetitionthe1st
respondent had sought the direction to the appellant to take
appropriate action pursuant to Ext.P1 request made by the
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 5 2025:KER:60667
MunicipalitytocreateadditionalpostofDriverandforafurther
directionnottoterminatehisservices.ThelearnedSingleJudge
reliedonthecounteraffidavitfiledbytheappellantinthatwrit
petition,whereinitisstated,interalia,thattheMunicipalityhas
not received any order or directions from any authority to
disengage the 1st respondentas Driver.It isfurtherstated that
as on today no decision has been taken to disengage the 1st
respondent.Inthecounteraffidavittheyhavetakenastandthat
the1strespondentdoesnotbelongtothecontingentstaffofthe
MunicipalityandthatheisbeingengagedonDailyWagebasisas
and when necessity arises. The learned Single Judge recording
the above submissions disposed of the writ petition.
4. After the disposalof thewrit petition,the Government
considered the claim of the 1st respondent and passed Ext.P6
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 6 2025:KER:60667
Orderwherebytheclaimofthe1strespondentwasacceptedand
wasregularizedasperExt.P2GovernmentOrderasacontingent
employee of the Municipality. However, by Ext.P8 order dated
19.2.2007, Ext.P6 orderwascancelledonthegroundthatthe1st
respondent is not a contingent CLR sanitation worker of the
Municipality andtherefore, heisnotentitled forregularization
in service. The said order dated 19.02.2007 was the subject
matterofchallengeinW.P(C)No.7311of2007.ThelearnedSingle
Judgevidetheimpugnedjudgmentdated21.07.2011hadallowed
the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P8 dated 19.02.2007. The
appellant being aggrieved, has filed the present writ appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
during the pendency of the present appeal the 1st respondent
died. His legal representatives have been brought on record as
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 7 2025:KER:60667
additional respondents 3 to 6. The learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the learned Single Judge erred in
concluding that the first respondent was a contingent worker,
based merely on a presumption and without any supporting
basis.ThelearnedSingleJudgeerredinlawindeclaringthatthe
1st respondent is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P6 Government
Order in full instead of directing the 2nd respondent
Government to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of
being heard to the 1strespondent.Sincetheregularisationvide
Ext.P6 was itself illegal, the Government was competent to
revokeitsearlierorder,whichhadbeenpassedinadvertently.In
sucha situation, the impugnedjudgment passedbythelearned
Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 8 2025:KER:60667
6. The learnedGovernment Pleader appearingfor the2nd
respondent supported the aforementioned contentions of the
appellant and submitted that the learnedSingle Judgeerred in
arriving at the conclusion; therefore, the appeal ought to be
allowed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned GovernmentPleader appearingfor the 2ndrespondent.
Even though there is no appearance on behalf of additional
respondents 3 to 6, no prejudice will be caused tothem bythe
judgment we intend to pass.
8. It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent was
appointedpriorto31.12.2000;ie,witheffectfrom09.12.1997.On
perusal of Ext.P2 Government Orderit can be seen thatthe 1st
respondent was eligible for regularization being a contingent
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 9 2025:KER:60667
employee. The learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.33239 of 2005
has not recorded any categorical finding as towhether the1st
respondent was a contingent employee or a daily wage
employee. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is
incorrect. Moreover, the 1st respondent had died during
pendencyofthewritappeal.Aftereffluxofsuchalongtime,we
do not propose to interfere with the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge. Moreover, the learned counsel for the
appellant was not able to produce any document to show that
the1strespondentwasnotacontingentemployee.Noerrorcan
be found in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. The present writ appeal being bereft of merit and
substance, is hereby dismissed.
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 10 2025:KER:60667
10. The 1st respondent isentitled tothe benefit ofExt.P6
Government Order in full. The appellant shall comply with
Ext.P6 order in full and grant all consequential as well as
monetary benefits to the legal representatives of the 1st
respondent as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment and file the compliancereport beforethe Registry of
this Court forthwith.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
MC/6.8
W.A.No.1521 of 2011 11 2025:KER:60667
APPENDIX OF WA 1521/2011
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure A
HOTOCOPY
P OF
LETTER
DATED
23.1.2007
ISSUED
BY
THEKALPETTA
MUNICIPALITY
TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATE.
