High Court Kerala High Court

S.Ramani vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
S.Ramani vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18328 of 2006(R)


1. S.RAMANI,PART-TIME SWEEPER-CUM-PEON,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.D.KAVITHA, PART-TIME SWEEPER-CUM-PEON
3. M.J.SHEEBA, PART-TIME SWEEPER-CUM-PEON,
4. R.BINDU, PART-TIME SWEEPER-CUM-PEON,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

 Dated :07/02/2007

 O R D E R
                                  K.K.DENESAN, J

                        -----------------------------------------------

                           W.P.(C)NO.18328  of 2006

                        ------------------------------------------------



                Dated this the 7th   day  of  February, 2007



                                      JUDGMENT

There are four petitioners in this writ petition. Going by the

statements made in the counter affidavit of the second respondent, the

first petitioner was working as Part-time Sweeper till her appointment

as Sweeper-cum-Peon (full time) with effect from 9.6.2005. Other

petitioners are Part Time Sweepers. The claim is for special allowance

at the rate of Rs.200/= per mensum with effect from 1.11.1998. The

special allowance is payable only to those performing duties in the

residence of the Hon’ble Judges in the High Court of Kerala.

2. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent furnishes

the details relating to the period during which the petitioners had

worked as part-time contingent employees in the residence of the

respective Judges. Hence, instead of relying on the service particulars,

I consider it proper to accept the service details of the petitioners as

shown in Ext.R2(a). Relevant details are reproduced below for easy

reference.

W.P.(C)No. 18328/2006 :2:

1. Smt.Remani

From 1.12.1999 to 24.12.1999

From 6.6.2001 to 29.8.2001

From 1.10.2001 to 31.10.2001

From 10.9.2002 to 24.3.2003

From 18.8.2003 to 22.12.2004

From 4.3.2005 to 8.6.2005

2. Smt.P.D.Kavitha

From 7.4.1999 to 12.7.1999

From 7.9.1999 to 18.9.1999

From 1.11.1999 to 30.11.1999

From 1.1.2002 to 31.1.2002

From 15.5.2002 to 1.1.2003

From 4.2.2003 to 15.12.2003

From 10.2.2005 to 15.3.2005

3. Smt.M.J.Sheeba

From 9.3.1999 to 4.5.1999

From 13.5.1999 to 1.6.1999

From 9.7.1999 to 27.7.2000

From 15.2.2001 to 1.10.2001

From 15.2.2002 to 19.11.2002

From 7.12.2002 to 9.5.2003

From 19.5.2003 to 31.12.2003

From 1.11.2004 to 25.4.2006

4. Smt.R.Bindu

From 1.11.1998 to 12.11.1999

From 1.6.2000 to 30.6.2000

From 15.7.2000 to 23.8.2003

From 2.2.2005 to 3.3.2005

From 23.3.2005 to 3.8.2005

W.P.(C)No. 18328/2006 :3:

3. It is not disputed that the petitioners are eligible for the grant

of special allowance at the rate of Rs.200/= per mensum for attending

duty, as shown above. The only issue in dispute is about their

entitlement for special allowance with effect from 1.11.1998. According

to the first respondent, the allowance need be granted from the date

of Ext.P1 only, that is 27.5.2005. The petitioners submit that the

benefit shall be granted with retrospective effect from 1.11.1998.

4. It appears that the matter was under correspondence

between respondents 1 and 2 for quite sometime. Initial

correspondence was on the very question of granting special

allowance to certain categories of employees including part-time

contingent employees. This led to the issuance of Ext.P1. Thereafter

the correspondence was directed towards the claim for the grant of

special allowance from 1/11/1998. Government stuck to its stand that

the categories of employees shown in Ext.P1 will be entitled for

special/compensatory allowance with effect from the date of that order

only and refused to give retrospective effect to that. Hence writ

petitions were filed by some of the categories of the employees shown

in Ext.P1. Those writ petitions were disposed of by this Court as per

Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. Admittedly, Exts.P3 and P4 judgments

have become final.

W.P.(C)No. 18328/2006 :4:

5. In answer to the contentions raised by the petitioners herein,

the first respondent has filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that

retrospective effect cannot be given to the grant of compensatory or

special allowance, as according to the first respondent, retroactivity

will violate Article 49 of Kerala Financial Code Vol.1.

6. The petitioners as also the second respondent have raised

contentions to establish that in cases where specific dates have been

given for the grant of benefits like compensatory allowance/special

allowance as stated in the proviso to the Kerala Financial Code Vol.I,

the main part of that Article cannot stand in the way.

7. I do not consider it unnecessary to examine the correctness of

the rival contentions centering round the interpretation of Article 49 of

Kerala Financial code Vol.I, since according to me, this writ petition can

be disposed of without doing that exercise.

8. Heard both sides. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the

petitioners as also the Senior Counsel appearing for the second

respondent, the petitioners who belong to the lowest rung of the

service cannot be treated disadvantageously than other categories

of employees who are included in Ext.P1 and in whose cases this Court

has passed judgments directing the government to give effect to

Ext.P1 order from 1.11.1998. Denial of similar benefits to the Part

W.P.(C)No. 18328/2006 :5:

Time Sweepers will be plainly discriminatory and violation of their

fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. I

find merit in the above submissions made by the learned counsel.

9. It is necessary in the interest of justice to hold that the

petitioners shall be treated atleast in the same manner as those

belonging to the higher categories of employees mentioned in Ext.P1

and to whom the benefit has been granted with retrospective effect.

The writ petition, is therefore, allowed. There shall be a declaration

that the petitioners are entitled for the grant of special allowance of

Rs.200/= per month with effect from 1.11.1998 or such other periods

as are mentioned in Ext.R2(a). There shall be a direction that benefits

arising consequent on the above finding shall be made available to the

petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css
/

W.P.(C)No. 18328/2006 :6: