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