Kerala High Court
Chandramathi P P vs The Chairman, Nirmithi Kendra/ ... on 7 July, 2025
WA NO.1386/2025 1
2025:KER:49444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1386 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.28960 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
CHANDRAMATHI P P,
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O.PRABHAKARAN,
RESIDING AT ELAYAVOOR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670594
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHAIRMAN,
NIRMITHI KENDRA/DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, P. O. CIVIL STATION,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
2 THE MEMBER SECRETARY
NIRMITHI KENDRA, SUB COLLECTORS OFFICE COMPOUND,
GUNDERT ROAD, THALASSERY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670101
WA NO.1386/2025 2
2025:KER:49444
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2025, THE COURT ON 07.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1386/2025 3
2025:KER:49444
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M.,J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
05.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28960 of
2023. Appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P., and
respondents were the respondents therein.
2. Appellant had filed the W.P.(C) seeking to direct the
respondents to regularise her appointment with effect from 2001
onwards and to sanction her all the service benefits from the said
date. A direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass
appropriate orders on the Ext.P2 representation preferred by her
had also been sought in the W.P.
3. The learned Single Judge had vide the impugned Judgment
dismissed the W.P. inter alia holding that the appellant had no right
and the respondents had no corresponding duty to regularise her
appointment with effect from 2001. Aggrieved by the said dismissal,
this appeal has been filed.
4. Heard Sri. Abdul Rauf Pallipath, Advocate for the appellant,
2025:KER:49444
Sri.Cibi Thomas, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Sunil
Kumar Kuriakose, Senior Government Pleader for the 3 rd
respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the impugned judgment had been rendered erroneously and
without looking into the legal and factual aspects involved. He
contended that the appellant is a diploma holder in Civil Engineering
and has been working with the 2nd respondent from 1999 onwards.
She was given a permanent appointment from 2001 onwards only
after she moved the Women's Commission and the Human Rights
Commission seeking redress. The learned counsel contended that
the appellant is entitled to get her appointment regularised with
effect from 2001 onwards and for all service benefits that would
consequently follow therefrom. The learned counsel alleged that as
regards the appellant, there has been a denial of equal treatment of
all employees, and the respondents had been giving promotions and
increments in salary to persons of their choice, while denying the
legitimate rights of the appellant.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2
2025:KER:49444
contended that the Governing body meeting of the respondent held
on 01.08.2003 had decided to allow the appellant to continue in
Nirmithi Kendra on a stipend eligible for supervisor trainees. The
Governing Body meeting held on 26.04.2004 had considered the
request of the appellant to post her as a Site Engineer, and it was
found that she was not eligible for such appointment. Based on the
request made by the appellant, the Sub committee constituted for
the purpose had submitted a report before the Governing body and
the Sub committee taking note of the fact that appellant had been
working in Nirmithi Kendra for more than 12 years in the post of
trainee supervisor, had recommended for posting her as Work
Superintendent. It was also recommended that the appellant had to
work in the revised post on probation for one year, and her
performance was recommended to be evaluated by the member
secretary, ex-secretary and project engineer during the relevant
period. The Governing Body had discussed the Sub Committee
report and decided to accept the same, and thereafter her services
were regularised with effect from 2013. It is contended by the
learned counsel that the decisions thus taken by the Governing body
2025:KER:49444
were purely based on the performance of the petitioner and that
even though she was irregular in her duties, the Governing body
was benevolent enough to regularise her service from 2013. Hence,
the prayer put forth by the petitioner to regularise her appointment
with effect from 2001 onwards and to sanction her service benefits
from the said date is legally unsustainable and not fit to be granted.
It is also submitted that the appellant is due for retirement on the
completion of 58 years and that her husband is a retired employee
from the cooperative sector. Her daughters are Bank employees,
and the contention that three daughters are dependent on her apart
from her unemployed husband is thus devoid of merit.
7. We have heard both sides in detail and have also
considered the respective contentions put forth. It is noted that the
2nd respondent had vide Ext.P1 dated 06.06.2019 conveyed the
decision that had been taken concerning regularisation of the
appellant and had concluded that her performance in the past years
was not satisfactory. Since such remarks had been expressed by
the Governing body on her performance and attitude, the Committee
had decided not to consider her past service in regularisation.
2025:KER:49444
Though the appellant admits that she came to know about Ext.P1
communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the District Labour
Officer, and the decision reflected therein, which is of the year 2019
the appellant had not challenged or objected to the same within a
reasonable time. No relief had been sought in the W.P.(C)
challenging such decision.
8. In the light of the above, the finding of the learned Single
Judge that the appellant has not been able to point out any law
which would suggest that she has got a right for regularization with
effect from 2001 and that if she had any grievance regarding her
regularization, she would have moved this Court at an earlier point
of time, is valid and pertinent. The learned Single Judge had rightly
concluded that the appellant had approached this Court only in the
year 2023, that is, 10 years after the date of her regularisation,
which had been effected from 04.01.2013.
9. As regards the relief for disposal of Ext.P2
representation made in the W.P.(C), we note that the appellant had
preferred Ext.P2 on 26.06.2023. She had then chosen to move
the Court by filing the W.P.(C) on 22.08.2023, inter alia, seeking the
2025:KER:49444
disposal of the said representation. It is trite and settled that a new
cause of action cannot be created, and the delay that had already
been incurred cannot be condoned by merely filing fresh
representations. If the appellant had a grievance that she ought to
be regularised from 2001 onwards and not from 2013, she should
have taken appropriate steps immediately upon being so regularised
in service. The WP filed belatedly in the year 2023 in this respect is
not sustainable in law. The learned Single Judge was right in
dismissing the same.
For the above, we see no cause or reason to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:49444
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TYPED COPY OF EXT P1
