Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C).No. 30927 of 2012 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- C.SADASIVAN, AGED 4 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, OORAMPADY KUNNIL HOUSE, RIPPON P.O. MEPPADY ”
577. WAYANAD DISTRICT (DRIVER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KALPETTA DEPOT). BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
023.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
023.
4. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KALPETTA ”
121. BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30927 of 2012 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT. P1 COPY OF PROFORMA DATED 15 10.2012 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 COPY OF THE DUTY PASS OF PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXT. P3 COPY OF THE LIST OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.78/2011/TRAN. DATED 22 12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15 3.2012 IN WP(C) NO. 3100/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20 11.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE PN C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------------ W.P.(C). No. 30927 of 2012 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012 JUDGMENT Petitioner is working as an empanelled driver under the 2nd respondent Corporation. He claims that in view of his continued service he is entitled to be regularised in service of the Corporation, on the basis of Exhibit P3 Government Order and on the basis that so many other similarly situated persons have already been regularised. It is also mentioned that the 4th respondent had recommended him for regularisation, as evident from Exhibit P1. But no steps were taken to issue any orders. Since the request was not considered, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent on submitting Exhibit P5 representation. The petitioner is seeking direction from this court for an early consideration and disposal of Exhibit P5.
2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondents. I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to consider and W.P.(C). No. 30927 of 2012 -2- dispose of Exhibit P5 within a time to be stipulated.
3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and to take an appropriate decision on the request made by the petitioner seeking regularisation, if necessary after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /True copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn