P.Sajeev vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 4 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.Sajeev vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 4 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33908 of 2009(G)


1. P.SAJEEV, PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLARA.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :04/12/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 33908 OF 2009 (G)
                =====================

          Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a Part Time Sweeper in the Village Office,

Kallara, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District. According to the

petitioner since 1996, he has been working as such. It is stated

that as the sweeping area is more than 100m2 he is entitled to the

benefit of GO(P) No. 501/05/Fin dated 25/11/2005 by regularising

his services. However, according to the petitioner, proceedings

have not been initiated and therefore the writ petition.

2. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that though

pursuant to Ext.P2, though the petitioner was paid consolidated

salary of Rs.1000/- plus DA, which was revised to Rs.1250/- plus

DA, it has since been reduced to Rs.1000 plus DA.

3. As far as the claim of the petitioner for regularization

on the basis of GO(P) No.501/05/Fin dated 25/11/2005 is

concerned, if as stated, the sweeping area is more than 100m2,

the claim of the petitioner deserves to be considered. Therefore,

in order to do the same, it is for the 4th respondent to make

necessary proposal to the 2nd respondent, who in turn has to place

WPC 33908/09
:2 :

the same before the 1st respondent for passing orders in the

matter.

4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the

4th respondent to make necessary proposal to the 2nd respondent,

who shall place proposal before the 1st respondent for necessary

orders.

5. As far as the claim of the petitioner for restoration of

monitory benefits claimed by him is concerned, I leave it open to

the petitioner to pursue the matter before the authorities.

Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the

4th respondent to make necessary proposal.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *