Employees with irregular appointments but long service may be entitled to regularisation, distinguishing between illegal and irregular appointments.

ORDER :

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner seeks permission to regularise the services of three persons, who were later impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 3 to 5. They are presently working as daily wage employees in Sabari Estate, Nilakkal as part-time Kazhakam/Thali under the Travancore Devaswom Board.

2. The petitioner submits that before 31.03.2012, additional respondents No.3 to 5 completed five years of service. This Court as per the judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P. (C) No.6021 of 2011 and connected cases, Annexure A1, accorded permission to regularise daily wage employees, who had put in five years of service as on 31.03.2012. Stating that the names of additional respondents No.3 to 5 were omitted to be included in the list of employees to be regularised in terms of the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. In terms of various orders, additional respondents No.2 to 38 were impleaded. The 1^st respondent, Senior Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department filed counter-affidavit dated 06.05.2023. It was contended that services of additional respondents No.3 to 5 could not be regularised in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1and various other decisions of the Apex Court.

4. The 2^nd respondent-Secretary, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board filed counter-affidavit dated 27.06.2023. The 2^nd respondent also set forth similar contentions as raised by the 1^st respondent. Respondents No.6 to 38 were impleaded on the application of additional respondents No.3 to 5. Their contention is that after commencement of their service only, the additional respondents No.6 to 38 entered the payroll of Travancore Devaswom Board and when the Travancore Devaswom Board regularised the services of additional respondents No.6 to 38, they have every entitlement to get their service also regularised.

5. Additional respondent No.33 entered appearance and filed a counter-affidavit stating that he was appointed from the list prepared by the 2^nd respondent-Devaswom Recruitment Board and his name was inadvertently included in I.A.No.2 of 2023, which was filed by additional respondents No.3 to 5 for impleading.

6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Recruitment Board and the learned counsel for the party respondents.

7. The petitioner seeks permission to regularise the services of additional respondents No.3 to 5. It is stated that their names were omitted from the list of employees regularised in terms of the permission granted in Annexure A1 judgment. Annexure A1 is the common judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P. (C) No.6021 of 2011 and connected cases. Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 in Annexure A1 judgment read as follows:

“5. Adv. P. Gopal on behalf of the Board in WP (C) No.6021 of 2011 says that some time in 2009, there was a decision by the Board to regularise persons who had put in five years of daily rated service as on 1.7.2009. Adv. G. Biju appearing for TDB in the DBAs and in WP (C) No.20417 of 2011 states that by now, the Board has taken a decision to regularise such persons who have served as daily rated employees for five years as on 31.3.2012.

6. In the aforesaid premises, we grant permission for the appointments as sought for in DBA Nos. 36 and 37 of 2011 and direct that the Board shall finalise the list of persons to be regularised in accordance with the submissions made above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appropriate orders shall be issued regularising the employees found due. In doing so, the claim of the petitioners in WP (C) Nos. 6021 and 20417 of 2011 will also be considered in accordance with law subject to the condition that they make appropriate request if t