JACOB M. PUTHUPARAMBIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 19-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JACOB M. PUTHUPARAMBIL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 
B 
[A.M. AHMADI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
c 
Kera/a Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986/Kerala State Sub-
ordinate Service Rules, 1958-Section 19( !)/Rule 9(a)(i)-Kerala 
Water Authority-Transfer of employees and regularisation of service. 
Consequent upon the establishment of Kerala Water -Authority 
under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986, all the func-
tions which were till then carried on by the Public Health Engineering 
Department (PHED) were transferred to the said Authority. Contem-
poraneously with that every person working in the PHED became the 
employee of the Kerala Water Authority by virtue of Section 19(1) of 
D 
the Act. Though the said Act was given retrospective operation w .e.f. 
E 
F 
Isl March 1984, Section 69 thereof came into force from the date of 
publication of the Act in the Gazettee viz., 4.8.1986; actual effect could 
be given w.e.f. 30.7.1988 on which date the necessary notification was 
issued where by the rule was amended and the Authority came within 
the purview of the Public Service Commission. Thus the employees of 
the Authority fell into four different groups viz., (i) those who were in 
the employment of PHED before the constitution of the Authority and 
were transferred to the Authority, (ii) those whom the Authority 
. employed between !st April, 1984 and 4th August 1986, (iii) those who 
were appointed between 4th August 1986 and 30th July 1988, and (iv) 
those who were appointed after 30th July 1988. The Authority it seems 
terminated the services of various employees. 
The petitioners apprehending termination of their services hy the 
Authority filed petitions contending inter alia that they were recruited 
through, the Employment Exchange and till the issuance of the notifica-
tion dated 30. 7.1988, amending the concerned PSC rule, there was no 
G 
question of the Authority consulting the PSC and therefore, appoint-
ments made prior to that date could not be termed as irreg_ular or 
unauthorised and could not be determined on that ground. It is, asserted 
by them that the High Court refused to grant relief to those employees 
whose services were threatened and despite favourable orders passed by 
this Court in cases that came before it, the Authority continued to 
H 
terminate the services of employees similarly placed treating those 
562 
.. 
,..- .. 
' 1 
- ' 
.. ,, 
· .. 
,,.._~ 
JACOB v. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY 
563 
orders as having been passed in respect of only those employees who 
were before the Court. It is, therefore, urged by them that this Court 
should pass orders laying down guidelines for the regularisation of the 
services of not only the petitioners but also all others similarly placed so 
that the low income employees are not required to knock at the doors of 
different courts for protection against the threatened arbitrary action 
of the Authority terminating their services. The Authority has contested 
the cases on the plea that all the appointments made before or after 
April I, 1984 were governed by Rule 9(a)(i) of the Rules till Section 69 
came into force w.e.f. 4.8.1986 and 30.7.1988 when it was amended. 
Appointments made after 4.8.1986 are clearly subject to the require-
ment of Section 69 of the Act and the Authority cannot act in contraven• 
tion thereof. Services of all those who were governed by Rule 9(a)(i) will 
have to be determinated on the expiry of 180 days. 
Allowing the appeals as also writ petitions, this Court, 
A 
c 
HELD: Interpreting Rule 9(a)(i) consistently with the spirit and 
philosophy of the Constitution, which it is permissible to do without b 
doing violence to the said rule, it follows that employees who are serving 
on the establishn1enl for long spells and have the requisite qualifications 
for the job, should not be thrown out but their services should. be 
regularised as far as possible. Since workers belonging to this batch 
have worked on their posts for reasonably long spells they are entitled 
to regularisation in service. [388A-B] 
E 
P. K. Natayani & Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Ors., [1984] Suppl. 
SCC 212; Dr. A.K. Jain & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1987] 
Suppl. SCC 497; Daily-rated Casual Labour employed under P & T 
Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of 
India and Ors., [1988] l sec 122, referred to. 
F 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.