IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31575 of 2008(H)
1. GRACY THIKKUNNUMPURATH, W/O. JOY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MEDICAL OFFICER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 31575 OF 2008 (H)
=====================
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 to the
extent the claim of the petitioner for regularization as a Part Time
Sweeper raised in view of the provisions contained in Ext.P3 GO
(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/05, was rejected.
2. A reading of Ext.P5 order shows that in the office of the
1st respondent, there was already a sanctioned post of Part Time
Sweeper and that the Part Time Sweeper working in that post was
transferred on 16/7/2001. Thereafter, four persons including the
petitioner were engaged. When claim was raised by the
petitioner for regularization, that was considered, and in view of
the above factual position, the same was rejected by Ext.P5. It is
also seen that subsequent to Ext.P5 and prior to the filing of this
writ petition, as per Ext.R1(a) order dated 25/10/2007, the
additional 4th respondent has been appointed on a regular basis
as a Part Time Sweeper.
3. First of all, the appointment of the additional 4th
respondent by Ext.R1(a) is not under challenge. Therefore, in the
WPC No. 31575/08
:2 :
absence of such a challenge, the petitioner cannot seek any relief in
this writ petition.
4. Referring to Clause 10 of Ext.P3 Government Order dated
25/11/2005, counsel submits that if there are more than one
claimant, such claimant could be appointed in any other office. It is
stated that that the petitioner is willing to work in any other office,
and therefore, her claim needs to be considered. However, a
reading of Clause 10 shows that it only directs that such cases
should be decided on a case to case basis, and does not in my view,
create any obligation on the appointing authority to offer
employment to all such Part Time Sweepers like the petitioner. Even
otherwise, Clause 10 applies only to cases where termination of the
Part Time Sweeper was by virtue of Government order dated
19/7/2003, which is not the case of the petitioner. The case of the
petitioner therefore is not covered by Clause 10, and therefore, she
cannot set up any claim for regularization.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the pay as revised
has not been paid for the period she was engaged. It is made clear
that if the petitioner has any such monetary claims, it is open to the
WPC No. 31575/08
:3 :
petitioner to take up the matter before the 1st respondent, in which
case, needful shall be done to redress her grievance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp