PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY Vs. GIRIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Municipality has filed Review Petitions against the judgments in W.P.(C) No.42501 of 2018 as well as Writ Petition No.25812 of 2018. An additional affidavit dated 14.9.2020 has been filed along with I.A.No.3 of 2020 stating as follows in paragraphs 4 to 9.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submit that the Municipality is denying appointment to persons like petitioners who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange whereas the DLR workers are given employment regularly even if it is through National Health Mission (NHM) or Suchitwa Mission. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, when there is sufficient work and vacancies in sanctioned posts, there is no reason to keep the writ petitioners away from employment.

(3.) From the affidavit dated 14.9.2020, it is seen that the Municipality is not engaging any fresh contingent workers. However, it is seen that the persons are engaged for cleaning either through NHM or through Suchitwa Mission Funds. In this process, it is only appropriate that the Municipality engages the writ petitioners giving them preference. However, as and when the appointments are made against the sanctioned posts either against the existing or against future vacancies, no appointment other than from among the petitioners shall be made. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioners would be free to approach the Municipality for engagement as in the case of other workers who are being paid from the funds of Suchitwa Mission/NHM. In the event of any deviation from what is stated in the affidavit, as incorporated in this order. The respondent Municipality would ave to face the consequences.