IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 36688 of 2007(P)
1. P.K.SANTHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
4. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :12/12/2007
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.36688 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of December 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as a casual sweeper in the Porkulam
Panchayat, according to her , from July 1992 onwards. She is being
paid a monthly salary of Rs.600/-. She contends that the Assistant
Engineer of the Public Works Department measured the sweeping
area serviced by her and found it to be 320.97 sq. metres.
Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to monthly wages of
Rs.1,250/- + D.A. going by G.O.(P)501/2005, according to her. By
Ext.P2 resolution, the Panchayat resolved that the petitioner be
regularized in service with effect from 1.3.2007. Ext.P3 is the
consequential decision taken by the Secretary on the basis of
Ext.P2. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 before the Deputy Director of
Panchayats seeking arrears of wages on the basis of Ext.P1 G.O. By
Ext.P5 order, the Director of Panchayats required the Secretary of
the Panchayat to set aside Ext.P2 resolution under Section 182 of
the Panchayat Raj Act. Petitioner challenges Ext.P5.
2. The question as to whether the casual sweepers working in
the Panchayats are also entitled to benefits similar to the one
conferred under G.O.(P)501/2005 is to be considered by the
W.P.(C)36688/2007 2
government. It has to be noted that in this case the Panchayat
Committee has passed Ext.P2 resolution deciding to regularize the
services of the petitioner. The Director has proceeded to require the
Secretary to rescind the resolution. Such direction has been issued
without notice to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the issue is now
pending before the government as evidenced by Ext.P6.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned government pleader, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the first respondent to independently look into Ext.P6 and
take a decision thereon keeping in mind the directions issued by
this Court in W.P.(C)13828/2007 and connected cases. In view of
the fact that the Panchayat had decided to regularize the
petitioner’s services under Ext.P2 resolution, she shall be permitted
to continue in service till a decision is taken by the government in
Ext.P6. Petitioner is at liberty to file an additional representation
before the government. Government shall take a decision on the
proposal for regularizing the petitioner’s services as decided by the
Panchayat, untrammeled by Ext.P6.
V.GIRI, JUDGE
css