Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.J.BABU, S/O. JOSEPH versus KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.J.BABU, S/O. JOSEPH v. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES - WA No. 1323 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11352 (27 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1323 of 2007()

1. K.J.BABU, S/O. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

3. THE STATE OF KERALA,

4. ANIL,

5. RENJITH,

6. JOY,

7. KANNAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :27/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... W.A. No. 1323 OF 2007 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 27th June, 2007



J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.: This appeal arises out of the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.1611 of 2006 dated 7th February, 2007.

2. The petitioner was before this court inter alia requesting this Court to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as has been done in the case of respondents Nos. 4 t o 7 in the Writ Petition. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the learned single Judge, on the ground that the petitioner was not a Part-time Sweeper, but was only a temporary employee and that a comparison of the petitioner's case with that of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 is not possible, since respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were appointed as Part-time Sweepers and they were also made to work as drivers.

3. The orders and circulars issued by the State Government would only indicate that if an employee works on a part-time basis, then only his/her case can be considered for the purpose of regularisation. We have already stated that the petitioner has never worked as a part-time W.A. No. 1323 OF 2007 2 sweeper. Therefore, we cannot direct the respondents to comply with the orders and circulars issued by the State Government to regularise the service of the petitioner. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, the learned single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the Writ Petition. We do not see any error in the orders so passed by the learned single Judge, which calls for our interference . Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.