N.Krishnan Vs. State of Kerala

N.Krishnan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 24, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1124317

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1124317
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique
Decided On: Jan 24, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N.Krishnan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....on 11.7.2005 to terminate their services. petitioners' organisation submitted a representation dated 13.7.2005 to the 1st respondent inter alia indicating that the said decision had been taken against them on 11.7.2005 only on account of the fact that they belong to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. hence they sought for intervention of the government.2. petitioners subsequently produced ext.p7 indicating that the government has taken a decision to regularise the similarly situated persons. according to the petitioners they are carrying out such works for the last w.p.(c) nos.24091/2005, 28361/2006 & 31669/2008 -2- 15 years and therefore they also require similar treatment as directed in ext.p5 order. having regard to the nature of contentions, primarily the issue is regarding regularisation of casual employees which has already been considered and decided by the hon'ble supreme court in secretary, state of karnataka & ors. v. umadevi (3) & ors. [(2006) 4 scc1. that apart if the government has a policy to regularise similarly placed persons petitioners can always approach the government and seek necessary reliefs. an organisation on behalf of the petitioners had already submitted ext.p4 representation with the government.3. w.p.(c) nos.28361/2006 and 31669/2008 are also filed for similar reliefs. but the cause of action survives only to the first petitioner. having regard to the nature of contentions urged, i am of the view that these writ petitions can be disposed of as under: (1) that the petitioners shall submit a representation to the 1st respondent inter alia stating the nature of w.p.(c) nos.24091/2005, 28361/2006 & 31669/2008 -3- employment they have undertaken with reference to the 2nd respondent municipality within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (2) on receiving the said representation, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders if similarly placed persons.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE24H DAY OF JANUARY20144TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24091 of 2005 (R) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------- 1. N.KRISHNAN,AGED40YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, ELANTHASSERY, B.M.C.-1 VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

2. N.CHANDRAN,AGED40YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN, ANJU BHAVAN, B.M.C.-1, VAIKOM P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS : ----------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE SECRETARY,VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY,VAIKOM., (PETITIONER' WORKING AS USUAL LABOURS IN VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY). R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S. JAMAL R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2401-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 28361/2006, WPC. 31669/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 24091 of 2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.G1-10234/04 DT1712/2004. P1(a): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.G1-10316/04 DT1712/2004. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT612/2004 AND RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R2. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 385/VIP/2005/M/(LSG)/DT173/2005 ISSUED BY A. SHAJAHAN TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 339/04-MISC DT137/2005. P5: COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.91/2001/LSGD/TRIVANDRUM DT293/2010. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN C.C.C. 1748/2007 DT102/2009 OF THE HON'BLE COURT. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.H7(H1)/9020/09 DT211/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.24091/2005, 28361/2006 & 31669/2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2014

JUDGMENT

Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.24091/2005 are persons who are alleged to be working as casual labourers in Vaikom Municipality. According to them, they are working there since more than 10 years. But the Council has taken a decision on 11.7.2005 to terminate their services. Petitioners' organisation submitted a representation dated 13.7.2005 to the 1st respondent inter alia indicating that the said decision had been taken against them on 11.7.2005 only on account of the fact that they belong to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. Hence they sought for intervention of the Government.

2. Petitioners subsequently produced Ext.P7 indicating that the Government has taken a decision to regularise the similarly situated persons. According to the petitioners they are carrying out such works for the last W.P.(C) Nos.24091/2005, 28361/2006 & 31669/2008 -2- 15 years and therefore they also require similar treatment as directed in Ext.P5 order. Having regard to the nature of contentions, primarily the issue is regarding regularisation of casual employees which has already been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC1. That apart if the Government has a policy to regularise similarly placed persons petitioners can always approach the Government and seek necessary reliefs. An organisation on behalf of the petitioners had already submitted Ext.P4 representation with the Government.

3. W.P.(C) Nos.28361/2006 and 31669/2008 are also filed for similar reliefs. But the cause of action survives only to the first petitioner. Having regard to the nature of contentions urged, I am of the view that these writ petitions can be disposed of as under: (1) That the petitioners shall submit a representation to the 1st respondent inter alia stating the nature of W.P.(C) Nos.24091/2005, 28361/2006 & 31669/2008 -3- employment they have undertaken with reference to the 2nd respondent Municipality within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (2) On receiving the said representation, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders if similarly placed persons had already given such regularisation, the 1st respondent shall consider the petitioners' case also in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Necessary orders shall be passed within a further period of three months from the date of such representation. (3) The direction issued in W.P.(C) No.24091/2005 shall apply to the first petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.28361/2006 and 31669/2008 as well. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE shg/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties N.Krishnan vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique