High Court Kerala High Court

Sandhya.K. vs The Veterinary Surgeon on 18 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sandhya.K. vs The Veterinary Surgeon on 18 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15189 of 2008(G)


1. SANDHYA.K., D/O.SIVASANKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE VETERINARY SURGEON,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :18/08/2010

 O R D E R
                  ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -----------------------------
                W.P.(C) No.15189 of 2008
               -------------------------------------
         Dated this the 18th day of August 2010


                      J U D G M E N T

Petitioner claims to be Part Time Sweeper engaged in

the Veterinary Dispensary Kanjirappuzha, Mannarkad,

Palakkad District, from the year 2001 onwards. In this writ

petition, her complaint is that, her services are not

regularized as per the provisions in G.O.(P)

No.201/2005/Fin, Tvm dated 25.11.2005.

2. From the counter affidavit filed by the 1st

respondent, apart from other various contentions, it is

stated that the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Mannarkkad had

measured the area swept by the petitioner and submitted a

report stating that the sweeping area is only 87.64 sq.mts.

3. Admittedly, the Government Order referred above

W.P.(C) No.15189 of 2008

-: 2 :-

provides for regularization only if the sweeping area is more

than 100 sq.mts. In this case the sweeping area is less than

100 sq.mts and if so, regularization cannot be claimed by

the petitioner.

4. Irrespective of that, going by the provisions of

Government Order referred above, petitioner is entitled to

continued engagement and pay protection including

subsequent revisions. Therefore, petitioner will be

continued to be engaged as part time sweeper, and she will

also be eligible for the benefit of pay protection with future

revisions. It is so clarified.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Jvt