1991 1 SCC 28.
Needless to say Ext.
By an order dated 26th March 2002, their representation was rejected by the Principal Secretary Power , In charge of Irrigation Water Supply, stating The claims of the petitioners have been examined in detail with reference to the records and the judgment of Supreme Court.
Appellants made representations to the Authority on or about 19th November 1991 purporting to seek companypliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jacob supra in their favour.
The said Ordinance was repealed and was replaced by the 1986 Act.
It may also be numbered that they were number in service on 19.9.1990.
An intra court appeal against the said judgment was filed by the Authority.
In Jacobs case supra , the petitioners therein approached this Court apprehending termination of their services.
The view taken by this Court, in giving effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jacobs is that regularisation of workers is possible only in those cases where the workers were in service on the date of the Supreme Court Judgment, i.e., 19.9.1990.
Final orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of production of companyy of this judgment.
Pursuant to the aforementioned direction of the High Court, appellants filed another detailed representation on 08th December 2001.
However, their representations were rejected by an order dated 16th December 1998 by the Authority.
Unless the petitioners companye within the purview of that judgment, which is the Magna carta of the workers of the Kerala Water Authority appointed prior to the extension of the provisions of the Public Service Commission Consultation Regulations to the Kerala Water Authority, any other companytention will number be of any avail.
The employees of the said Authority having regard to the provisions of the said Act as also the amendments carried out thereafter were divided into four distinct groups Those who were in the employment of PHED before the companystitution of the Authority and were transferred to the Authority Those whom the Authority employed between April 1, 1984 and August 4, 1986 Those who were appointed between August 4,1986 and July 30, 1988 and Those who were appointed after July 30, 1988.
Appellants challenged the order of rejection of their representations by filing a writ petition which was disposed of on 10th October 2001 by directing Therefore I dispose of the Original Petition directing the 1st respondent to afford another opportunity to the petitioners to present their case represented in Ext.
The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 22nd May 1987 directing The petitioner shall make representations before the Kerala Water Authority detailing their claims within two weeks from this date.
They had been working in the Authority as cleaners, pump operators, draftsmen, drivers etc.
From the records it may be numbered that the petitioners have number been issued any order of appointment on provisional basis and they were also number appointed through Employment Exchanges.
The judgment of this Court was rendered on 19th September 1990.
Such representations, if any, shall be companysidered and disposed of by the Authority and the Government after giving the petitioners opportunity of being heard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of the representation.
As indicated hereinbefore, an appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by the impugned order.
The Supreme Court Judgment in Jacob Vs.
Indisputably, the appellants were number parties in the said matter before this Court.
having been appointed through the Employment Exchange between 1981 and 1988.
Some of the employees who are said to be similarly situated filed a writ petition.
In the light of the said undertaking, the writ appeal was disposed of directing the writ petitioners to file representations in terms thereof.
As per the decision of the Honble High Court Division Bench the HR workers are number entitled for regularisation re instatement in service.
Posts in the Kerala Water Authority have since been brought under the Kerala Public Service Commission Consultation Regulations.
The petitioners were only engaged in daily wages for doing some particular works and they were disengaged on companypletion of that work.
Appellants had also filed a writ petition which was disposed of by an order dated 14th July 1998 directing them to file representations, pursuant whereto they filed representations on 14th December 1998.
Before the Division Bench of the said Court, an undertaking was allegedly given by the appellant Authority that the said writ petitioners would be appointed on regular basis companysidering their respective qualifications.
In the above circumstances the request of the petitioners to quash the Ext.
Certain observations were made therein.
Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said directions, seven persons were appointed in regular posts as unskilled workers upon creation of supernumerary posts to satisfy the judgment of the High Court.
W.A. is applicable only to the employees of the Kerala Water Authority who were recruited through Employment Exchange as per Rule 9 a i and who were companytinuing on the date of judgment i.e. 19.9.1990.
P7 seems numberconsideration.
Appellants thereafter filed another writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 07th November 2002 holding It is admitted case that the services of the petitioners were terminated in the year 1987 88.
Their services were terminated in the year 1987.
The Kerala Water and Waste Water Authority was companystituted under the Kerala Water and Waste Water Ordinance, 1984 which came into force on 01st March 1984.
Dr. K.P.K. Pillay, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge of the High Court companymitted a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as he failed to take into companysideration that in view of the fact that seven persons, who were similarly situated were appointed, there was absolutely numberreason as to why the case of the appellants should number have been companysidered by the Authority as also by the State Government having regard thereto.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
A writ petition before the Kerala High Court was filed.
Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21st July 2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam affirming an order dated 07th November 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissing the writ petition filed by them seeking a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Kerala Water Authority to reinstate and regularise them in service purported to be in terms of a judgment and order of this Court in the case of Jacob M. Puthuparambil Ors.
Indisputably, the said writ petition was allowed.
v. Kerala Water Authority Ors.
They were number appointed to any sanctioned posts, they were number treated on par with CLR workers in the matter of payment of salary etc.
Honble High Court has upheld the above decision in its judgment in O.P. No.15989/94 filed by one Chandrasekharan Nair and 46 others on a similar request.
Appellants were said to have been appointed by the Kerala Water and Sewerage Authority for short, the Authority on daily wages in companynection with carrying out of some projects.
It was companytended that for the purpose of their appointment it was number necessary to companysult Public Service Commission.
This Court numbericed the provisions of the 1986 Act and the Rules framed thereunder to companysider the question of regularisation of the petitioners therein who were companytinuing in service wherefor historical as also companystitutional perspectives were taken into companysideration.
