Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
Nizam Y – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary – Respondent
WP(C) Nos.37645 of 2023, 28445 of 2023 & 9547 of 2024
Decided On : 10-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Smt. A.Aruna, Smt.Jisha Shaji
For the Respondent: Government Pleader, Smt. Latha Anand, Sri. Sunil Nath, Gp
Temporary workers may claim regularisation after long service if their appointments are not illegal, ensuring fair employment practices and addressing procedural adherence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Right to Equality - Employees appointed on a contract basis - Claim for regularisation - The court found that a government order provided preferential treatment for residents of Chavara, where a mineral unit was established. Petitioners sought claim for regularisation based on prior service extensions. Previous judgments acknowledged the potential for regularisation but observed claims were rejected without considering their established service. Court set aside the rejection order, emphasizing the need for reconsideration aligned with governmental precedent on regularisation. (Paras 1-13)
(B) Employment Law - Temporary Workers - Legal Rights - This court reiterated that temporary workers, despite being without a vested right, may achieve regularisation after long service if the appointments were not illegal but lacked procedural formalities, affirming the principles upheld in recent case law. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners argued for their consideration for regularisation citing their long-term service and the provisions of a government order aimed at protecting local personnel in employment due to land acquisition.
Findings of Court:
Rejection of their regularisation was found unreasonable based on prior recognitions of their claims, necessitating a reevaluation by authorities.
Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of the government order rejecting the petitioners’ regularisation based on their contract service and prior commitments to local hiring.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the government must reconsider the petitioners' application for regularisation in light of previous case law and similar precedents established within the respondent organization's practices.
Result: Writ petitions allowed, with directions for the government to reassess the petitioners' claims.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for regularisation based on prior orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion of the legal issue regarding ext.p19 order. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of previous case law and its implications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court directive for government reconsideration. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
These writ petitions have been filed by ten employees working with Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML) as Junior Technicians (Fitter). For ease of reference, the facts and circumstances highlighted in W.P.(C) No. 28445 of 2023 are noticed. Pursuant to Ext.P1 Government Order dated 14.06.2005, certain privileges were sought to be extended to persons residing in Chavara with respect to appointments in the respondent company, since their land had been acquired for the purpose of establishing the unit. The petitioners claim that they also fall within the four corners of Ext.P1 Government Order dated 14.06.2005. On the basis of Ext.P3 notification dated 22.12.2011, steps were taken by the respondent company to make appointments to the post of Junior Technician (Fitter) on a “contract basis.” Ext.P4 is a similar notification dated 04.01.2012.
2. The petitioners state that they were appointed on a “contract basis” during the years 2011–12 as well as in 2015, pursuant to Exts. P3 and P4 notifications. On account of their continued service in the aforesaid post on a contract basis, the petitioners sought regularisation of their services. When steps were taken by the respondent company to make fresh appointments ignoring the claim of the petitioners, some of the employees approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6924 of 2015 and connected cases.
3. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 22.09.2015, this Court, though found that the petitioners may not have any vested right to claim continuity or regularisation, directed that if posts were sanctioned by the 1st respondent State, preference should be granted to persons continuing in service like the petitioners therein, in terms of the relevant circular issued in that regard.
4. Pursuant to the directions issued as above, by Ext.P11 Government Order, 44 posts of Technicians were sanctioned by the Government based on the advice made by the respondent company under Exts. P8 and P9. It is also to be noticed that the Government Order at Ext.P11 dated 29.12.2020 was issued specifically taking note of the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment, also noticing the entitlement of the petitioners for consideration for regularisation.
5. However, the petitioners contend that, subsequently, by Ext.P16 order dated 12.02.2021, their claim for regularisation came to be rejected. The proceedings at Ext.P16 were challenged before this Court and, by Ext.P18 judgment dated 22.11.2022 in W.P.(C) No.5077 of 2021, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Government to reconsider the request for regularisation made by the petitioners and to pass a “speaking order”.
6. Pursuant to the directions issued as above, the Government issued Ext.P19 Government Order dated 27.07.2023 rejecting the claim made by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have instituted the captioned writ petition.
7. I have heard Sri. B. Mohanlal, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28445 of 2023, and Smt. A. Aruna, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.37645 of 2023 and 9547 of 2024. I have also heard Sri. N. B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader as well as Smt. Latha Anand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent company.
8. The short issue arising for consideration in these writ petitions is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P19 Order issued by the Government rejecting the claim made by the petitioners as above.
9. This Court notices that, though in Ext.P6 judgment it was found that the petitioners would not have any claim on the basis of their service, the issue requires to be considered with reference to the subsequent jud
