S.Chandran v. The Muncipal Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 28007 of 2005 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS:

----------------------

1. S.CHANDRAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT "REVATHY", KOLLAMKAVU PAZHAKUTTY, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SECURITY GUARD, NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY.

2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJURAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT "DWARAKA", MELAMKODU PULIPPARA, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SECURITY GUARD, NEDUMANGADU, MUNICIPALITY.

BY ADV. SMT.K.PREETHA JOHN RESPONDENTS:

------------------------

1. THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AFFAIRS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION(URBAN AFFAIRS), SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R. RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 28007 of 2005 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FORWARDED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WITH SERVICE CONDITIONS P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION GRANTED SEEKING SANCTION P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.6.12.2003 P5:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.9.2005 P6:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P7:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS P8:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 28007 of 2005 (H) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

None appears for the petitioners or the 1st respondent Municipality.

2.

The petitioners were aggrieved with termination effected of their services by Exts.P7 and P8 orders.

The petitioners, admittedly, were temporary employees, who were continued for short periods. The termination was also effected on the instruction of the Government, based on the policy of not continuing temporary appointments and making regular appointments.

3.

Based on the counter affidavit of the State, this Court does not find any reason to keep the writ petition pending. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 4/12/15