Working For Around 21 Yrs But Not On Permanent Basis: Kerala HC Denies Relief To Port Trust Firemen Seeking Regularisation Of Services

The Kerala High Court denied relief to the firemen working in Cochin Port Trust who sought fixed pay and regularisation of their services.

The Court was dealing with two Writ Petitions filed by the said firemen seeking directions to fix their pay at par with the salary paid to the regular firemen working in the Port Trust.

A Single Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon said, “In my opinion, though the petitioners are not covered by the directions contained in Umadevi (supra), their claims have to be considered with reference to the touchstones of the principles laid down in the afore judgments of the Apex Court. As already noticed, the petitioners in these writ petitions have been appointed in the LRP, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification in 2003. In other words, for the last more than 21 years, the petitioners have been working in the respondent Port Trust, though not on a permanent basis.”

Senior Advocate Sugunapalan N.N. appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Senior Advocate K. Anand appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

In this case, the respondent Port Trust came out with an advertisement in the newspapers in the year 2003, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Fireman in the Leave Reserve Pool (LRP). The qualifications required for such appointments were also laid down in the said notification and the Petitioners contended that the qualifications prescribed for appointment in the LRP were the same as the qualification that was expected for a permanent appointment as a Fireman in the Cochin Port Trust. Resultantly, the Petitioners applied and after undergoing the selection process, they were appointed as Firemen on a daily wage of Rs. 187/-.

The Petitioners further contended that their pay was subsequently revised and at present, they were paid Rs. 630/- per day. It was also argued that the activities performed by the Petitioners and those who have been appointed on a regular basis are one and the same, however, their pay was different from those who were appointed on regular basis. The Petitioners also pointed out that, in spite of having put in more than 20 years of service in the respondent Port Trust, their services were not regularised. Hence, they filed Writ Petitions before the High Court.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Sri. Anand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent Port Trust may be correct in submitting that the petitioners are offered employment/work purely on a need basis. However, the respondent Port Trust is not denying that they have been so accommodated for the last 21 years. The fact that such appointments on an LRP basis were resorted to only on account of the ban imposed by the Central Government is also to be taken note of, as seen endorsed by Ext.P2 letter in W.P(C) No.37185 of 2016 by the Port Trust.”

The Court added that the said communication also accepts that the Respondent Port Trust is facing severe hardships to maintain the minimum staff strength of the fire unit on account of the ban on appointments.

The Court noted that though the Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as sought for in the Petitions, the same can be disposed of with the following directions –

i. The petitioners to file an appropriate representation before the respondent Port Trust pointing out the facts and figures seeking their preference for appointment, when regular appointments are being carried out.

ii. If such a representation is being filed by the petitioners, the respondent Port Trust to keep in mind the claim available to the petitioners as above on account of their having put in more than 21 years of service, though on an LRP basis and consider them also for regular appointment, providing some additional grace marks or preferential treatment by virtue of their experience in the service of the respondent Port Trust and offering age relaxation if required.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions.

Cause Title- S. Safeer & Anr. v. Cochin Port Trust & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:96619)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate N.N. Sugunapalan, Advocates V.N. Sankarjee, and S. Sujin.

Respondents: Senior Advocate K. Anand, Advocates R. Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara), Latha Anand, M.N. Radhakrishna Menon, and Sidharth P.S.

Click here to read/download the Judgment