IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35815 of 2007(L)
1. SHYLAJA.S., PART-TIME SWEEPER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
... Respondent
2. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :24/10/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
===============
W.P.(C).No.35815 of 2007 - L
===============================
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as a casual sweeper in the
Integrated Child Development Project Office at Sasthamkotta
from 1.2.1996 onwards. She claims regularisation in service
relying on Ext.P1 Government Order dated 25.11.2005. While
the petitioner was working as casual sweeper in the Integrated
Child Development Project Office at Sasthamkotta, by Ext.P3
letter dated 15.11.2007, the Director of Social Welfare directed
the Project Officer, Sasthamkotta to take steps to recruit a part
time sweeper through the employment exchange for regular
appointment and to terminate the existing part time sweeper
when the regular hand joins duty. This writ petition was
thereupon filed challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise
the petitioner in service.
2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit
admitting the fact that the petitioner is working as casual
W.P.(C).No.35815 of 2007 – L 2
sweeper in the Integrated Child Development Project Office at
Sasthamkotta from 1.2.1996 onwards. They however contend
that Ext.P1 Government Order contemplates regularisation of
casual sweepers who are working against non sanctioned posts
and in sanctioned posts only regular appointment can be made
and that in sanctioned posts, regularisation is not contemplated
by Ext.P1 Government Order. Yet another contention raised is
that though a regular selection through the Employment
Exchange was resorted to, that selection was set aside by this
Court and the appointment of a regular sweeper was held up for
that reason.
3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by
the learned counsel appearing on either side. The main objection
raised by the respondents to the petitioner’s request for
regularisation is that Ext.P1 Government Order contemplates
regularisation of part time casual sweeper in service after a post
is created. In other words, the respondents contend that where
ever there is an existing sanctioned post and casual sweepers are
occupying such posts, regularisation cannot be made. In my
W.P.(C).No.35815 of 2007 – L 3
considered opinion, there is no merit in the said contention.
Paragraphs 2, 8 and 13 of Ext.P1 would indicate that if casual
sweepers are working against sanctioned posts they are entitled
to be regularised. But where no post exists, a post of part time
contingent sweeper can be created if the sweeping area exceeds
100 square metre. In other words, the regularisation
contemplated in Ext.P1 is not of casual sweeper working against
non sanctioned posts alone as contended by the respondents. In
the absence of a stipulation to the effect that only casual
sweepers working against non sanctioned posts are entitled for
regularisation, such a stipulation cannot be read into Ext.P1. The
stand taken by the respondents cannot therefore be
countenanced. I notice that a similar contentions raised in W.P.
(C).No. 15520/2006 was rejected by Ext.P4 judgment. In Ext.P4
judgment, after noticing the fact that petitioner therein was
working against a sanctioned post, this Court held that as the
petitioner therein was working against a sanctioned post, no
order creating the post need be issued and that what is required
to be done is to pass an order regularising the petitioner. I
W.P.(C).No.35815 of 2007 – L 4
therefore quash Ext.P3 and direct the respondents to take steps
to regularise the petitioner in the existing post of part time
sweeper in the Integrated Child Development Project Office at
Sasthamkotta. Orders in that regard shall be passed within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, the petitioner will also be entitled to all
consequential benefits in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order and
the pay revision orders issued from time to time.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-