IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 583 of 2009(T)
1. LALITHA KUTTAN, W/O.KUTTAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
4. EXCISE INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/01/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 583 of 2009-T
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein was a Part-time Sweeper working at Excise
Range Office, Varappuzha. She was appointed initially as a Casual
Sweeper on daily wages on 1.1.2001 and thereafter was given appointment
as Part-time Sweeper with effect from 1.6.2001. She continued in that
capacity up to 13.10.2008, on which date she was terminated, according to
her, without issuing any notice and without assigning any reason.
2. The petitioner’s complaint is that she was entitled to be regularised
in service as Part-time Sweeper by creation of a post in that category as per
G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. Dated 25.11.2005 which is produced as Ext.P3.
As per Ext.P4, her case has been recommended by the Excise Inspector
which has been forwarded to the Asst. Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam for
further necessary action. It is stated that a subsequent proposal dated
12.2.2007 was also forwarded to the competent authority which is produced
as Ext.P5. Now, after her termination she has filed Ext.P8 representation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the first
respondent to take action on Ext.P8 in the light of Exts.P3 and P4.
WPC 583/2009 2
2. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to
consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the claim, the
first respondent will advert to the proceedings, Exts.P3, P4 and P5 before
passing final orders. The petitioner may be given an opportunity for
personal hearing also.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/