Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Lalgimon K.C - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) 13164 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. U.BALAGANGADHARAN
For the Respondent: SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, STANDING COUNSEL
Daily wage workers are entitled to consideration for regular appointments only when vacancies arise, and assurances for regularization contradict special rules governing employment.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Employment Law - Daily wage workers seeking regular appointment - Petitioners engaged since 2001 on daily wages, later on consolidated pay - Court directed reconsideration of claims for regular posts - Respondents rejected claims citing financial constraints and special rules - Court upheld the right to be considered for regular appointment only when vacancies arise. (Paras 1, 5, 11, 19)
(B) Employment Rights - Regularization - Petitioners not seeking regularization but appointment to regular posts - Assurance given to petitioners deemed illegal as it contradicts special rules. (Paras 7, 8, 13)
(C) Financial Viability - Significant reduction in student strength affecting the financial position of the employer - Court noted that the employer has discretion over filling posts based on financial viability. (Paras 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, daily wage workers since 2001, sought regular appointments against vacancies that arose from 2011. Despite assurances and multiple court interventions, their requests were repeatedly rejected due to financial constraints and special rules governing appointments.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the petitioners have a right to be considered for regular appointments, this right is contingent upon the employer's decision to fill vacancies based on current financial viability.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners were entitled to regular appointments and the legality of assurances given to them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners' claims for regular appointments must be considered only when the employer decides to fill vacancies, emphasizing the employer's discretion in staffing based on financial conditions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The petitioners, who are working as daily wage workers in the Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD), are before this Court for the fifth time seeking to command the 2nd respondent-IHRD to consider appointment of the petitioners against regular posts of Peon-cum-Watcher / Gardner and Sweeper-cum-Peon in the Institute against the vacancies arose from 2011 and to disburse all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioners state that they have been continuing from 2001 on daily wage basis and from 2011 on consolidated wages. They were assured appointment to regular posts in the next vacancies on the intervention of this Court. Though sufficient vacancies arose, the petitioners were not appointed on a regular basis.
3. The IHRD drew up Ext.P10 Scheme for appointment to various Last Grade posts, which also provided regularising the existing adhoc/provisional/temporary/daily wage workers. In Ext.P10 Scheme, there was a proposal to terminate the services of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore filed W.P.(C) No.24297/2008. The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners therefore filed WA No.1846/2010. It was thereafter that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 6000 per month.
4. The petitioners thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.8617/2014 seeking to appoint them against the vacancies available. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations filed by the petitioners. The representations were rejected by the respondents as per Ext.P14 stating that financial condition of IHRD is not conducive. Ext.P14 was challenged filing W.P.(C) No.21924/2015. In the writ petition this Court passed an interim order directing the respondent to consider the request for regularisation of the petitioners. The request was again rejected as per Ext.P15 order stating that it is not the policy of the Government to regularise daily wage / consolidated pay employees.
5. This Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.21924/2015 holding that the claim of the petitioners is not for regularisation, but for appointment to regular post as and when vacancies arise. This Court directed the respondents to reconsider the claim for appointment of the petitioners to regular vacancies, within a time frame. The IHRD thereafter passed Ext.P17 proceedings stating that the request of the petitioners for regularisation of their appointment cannot be considered now.
6. The petitioners again approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.1817/2023. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P18 judgment setting aside Ext.P17 and directing the respondent to reconsider the claim in terms of Ext.PI6 judgment. The request was again rejected as per Ext.P19 order reiterating what has been stated in Ext.P17. The petitioners have filed the writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P19.
7. The petitioners state that they were appointed on consolidated pay as per Ext.P1. The petitioners are entitled to be appointed against the vacancies arising in Last Grade. The IHRD has no case that they don’t have vacancies to accommodate the petitioners. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] cannot be applied to the petitioners, because the petitioners are not seeking regularisation. The request of the petitioners is to consider them for regular appointment through a selection process giving weightage for their previous service.
8. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a counter affidavit. Respondents 2 to 4 stated that the petitioners’ claim for regularisation based on assurance given, is unsustainable. When proceedings were issued for their engagement, an assurance was incorporated stating that they will be considered for appointment to regular posts in accordance with the rules and regulations in force. The respondents stated that the said assurance was illegal as it went against the special rules. As per the special rules, 20% of the sanctioned posts were to be
