IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16031 of 2008(H)
1. SREEDEVI M.T.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HOMEO MEDICAL SERVICE,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMEO),
4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.16031 of 2008
------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a Part Time Sweeper in the Manadukkam
Government Homeo Dispensary in Kasargod District. Going by
the pleadings, she was so engaged for the period from 13.3.2003
to 27.8.2005. She claimed regularization on the strength of G.O.
(P)No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005, that is now rejected by Ext.P2
order dated 2.12.2007. Reason stated in Ext.P2 is that the
sweeping area was got measured and was found to be 96.49
sq.mts.
2. Admittedly, G.O.(P)No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005
provides for regularization only in those cases where the
sweeping area is more than 100 sq.mts. If so, the finding that
the petitioner is not eligible for regularization as per the
provisions contained in the Government Order referred above
for the reason that the minimum sweeping area prescribed in the
Government Order is not satisfied, cannot be attacked in this
case.
W.P.(C) No.16031 of 2008
-: 2 :-
3. However, a reading of Clause 9 of the Government
Order states that if, on refixation of the sweeping area, it is
found to be less than 100 sq.mts. and if there is a casual sweeper
already working, he shall continue without disruption with
monetary benefits, the claim for retention should not be allowed.
Admittedly, petitioner was engaged only till 27.8.2005. If so, she
cannot claim to be a casual sweeper in service on the date of the
Government Order to claim continued engagement on the basis
of Clause 9.
4. In this case, the sweeping area was got measured and
before the implementation of the G.O.(P)No.501/2005 dated
25.11.2005, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with as
early as on 25.11.2005. For these two reasons, the claim for
retention also is not sustainable.
Therefore the writ petition fails and accordingly
dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Jvt