Sugesh S vs Alappuzha Municipality Represented By Its Secretary, M.O. Ward, Alappuzha 688001

Anu Sivaraman, J

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent Municipality to reinstate the petitioner as substitute contingent worker in the 1st respondent Municipality and regularize his service on the ground that the reasons stated in Ext.P3 order is no more in existence.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as substitute contingent worker in one of the vacancies that exists in the 1st respondent Municipality with immediate effect.

(iii) To issue a direction to the 1st respondent Municipality to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to appoint him as substitute contingent worker and regularize his service.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the 1st respondent seeking reinstatement as Substitute Contingent Worker in the 1st respondent and to regularise his service. However, by Ext.P3 order dated 30.10.2015, the petitioner was informed that there was a writ petition pending before this Court with regard to appointment of Contingent Worker as W.P.(C) No.18436/2015 and that the request of the petitioner for reinstatement cannot be considered till the said writ petition is disposed of. It is further stated that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner with regard to assault of a fellow employee and that the same has also to be disposed of before the petitioner's claim can be considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by Ext.P4 judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha in C.C. No.708/2017, the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges against him. It is submitted that by Ext.P5 judgment dated 14.1.2022, the writ petition referred to in Ext.P3, that is, W.P.(C) No.18436/2015 has also been dismissed. It is, therefore, contended that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law.

Having heard the learned Standing Counsel also, I am of the opinion that in view of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments, the contentions raised by the petitioner that he is entitled to reinstatement as Substitute Contingent Worker as also his request for regularisation is liable to be considered in accordance with law.

There will, accordingly, be a direction that in case the petitioner approaches the 2nd respondent with an appropriate representation seeking re-engagement as Substitute Contingent Worker as also seeking an appointment as Contingent Worker, the representation shall be considered in accordance with law on its merits and appropriate orders shall be passed, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by Ext.P3.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.