IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35212 of 2008(P)
1. C.M.VENU, LAST GRADE SERVANT,
... Petitioner
2. S.K.VIJAYAPRAKASH, LAST GRADE SERVANT,
3. K.VENUGOPALAN, LAST GRADE SERVANT,
4. G.SANJEEV KUMAR, LAST GRADE SERVANT,
5. D.SIVAN PILLAI, LAST GRADE SERVANT,
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C) No.35212 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of November 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners submit that they are Last Grade Servants
under the 2nd respondent College. It is submitted that though
they have rendered service from 1992 onwards, they are
presently working in the category of Peons. It is stated that
although there are several persons in the last grade category,
who are juniors to them, without deploying the juniors for
scavenging and sweeping, the petitioners are compelled to do
such works. It is stated that being peons they are liable to work
in that category, and therefore, compelling them to discharge the
duties of a scavenger and sweeper is illegal.
2. On the otherhand, the learned Government Pleader
now points out that such work arrangement could have been
made only following Ext.P1, the revised staff pattern. It is stated
that if there are excess staff available, they are to be treated as
supernumerary, and that the duties that are attached to the
W.P.(C) No.35212/2008
-2-
vacant post in the College will have to got discharged by
redistributing work among the supernumerary employees
presently available in the College. It is stated that this complaint
could have arisen only on account of such redistribution of work.
3. Be that as it may, since the complaint of the
petitioners is that ignoring their seniority, without deploying their
juniors for sweeping and scavenging they are compelled to do the
work, I am inclined to take the view that this is a matter
essentially for the 2nd respondent to consider. Therefore, it is for
the petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd
respondent, who shall examine the grievance of the petitioners,
and on such examination, if it is found that there is any
subsistence in the petitioners’ complaint, the 2nd respondent shall
take necessary remedial action to redress their grievance.
4. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment
before the 2nd respondent for necessary action.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg