IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1416 of 2008(R)
1. K.RADHAMANI, W/O. CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
4. NILAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/01/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO: 1416 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is seeking for regularisation as Part-time Sweeper
with regular scale of pay with arrears of salary with effect from a date
prior to the date of Ext.P1 judgment i.e., with effect from 9.9.2002.
The necessary facts for disposal of the case are following:
2. She has been working as Part-time Sweeper on daily wages,
under the 4th respondent Panchayath from 4.12.1998. The sweeping
area is more than 400 meter square and therefore, she was entitled for
a regular scale of pay as applicable to regular Part-time Sweepers. This
aspect was considered by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment in which the
petitioner herein was the petitioner. The issue was considered in the
light of the directions contained in an earlier judgment disposing of a
batch of Writ Appeals. This Court after considering the effect on G.O.(P)
No.3002/1998/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 and G.O.(P) No.361/2005/Fin.
dtd.2.8.2005 held that the right of the petitioners to continue in service
and their claim for pay and allowances will be governed by the
observations and directions as applicable to the respective categories
among the petitioners in the writ petitions.
3. Ext.P2 G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dtd.25.11.2005 adopted
modified guidelines and Ext.P3 Government Letter clarified that the
same applies to the casual sweepers appointed in Panchayats. This is
wpc:1416 of 2008
2
made clear in the last paragraph of Ext.P3. The Panchayat as per Ext.P4
recommended the petitioner’s case for regularisation. By Ext.P5 the same
was rejected by the Director of Panchayat without referring to the various
Government orders and binding directions of this Court. It was held by
the Director of Panchayat that relevant Government orders namely G.O.(P)
No.501/2005/Fin. dtd.25.11.2005 does not apply in the case of the
petitioner for regularisation. This is patently wrong. Going by Exts.P2 and
P3 she is entitled for the benefit of regularisation. In paragraph 4 of the
counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the
appointment of casual sweepers who have been working in Grama
Panchayats can be regularised only by Government in accordance with the
provisions of this G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005. It is also
stated in Government Letter No.6438/H2/2006/LSGD dated 6.5.2006
(Ext.P3) that the Grama Panchayat should take the steps to regularise the
casual sweepers strictly following the Guidelines in the Government order
dated 25.11.2005. For this purpose, the Government Order contains an
Annexure Application to be submitted to Government for creation of post
of Part -time Contingent Sweeper. Even though the second respondent
has stated in the counter that the scheme may not apply to the petitioner,
this is wrong. The distinction sought to be drawn, by relying upon the
payment of wages on daily basis is not correct. There is no such
stipulation in Ext.P3.
wpc:1416 of 2008
3
4. Ext.P5 is therefore quashed. There will be a direction to the
second respondent to forward the application and other materials
produced along with it, to the first respondent within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first
respondent will take appropriate decision for regularisation in the light of
the above findings and communicate the same to the petitioner and the 4th
respondent within a further period of two months.
The petitioner will be entitled for arrears of pay which shall be
disbursed by the Panchayat. The interim order granted by this Court will
continue till final orders are passed and communicated. The Writ Petition
is allowed as above. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
bps