IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9377 of 2007(N)
1. SUBHASHINI, D/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UDAYANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
4. THE UDAYANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU
For Respondent :SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C)--------------------------2007
Nos.9377 (N) & 12433 (E) of
Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in these cases submits that she was engaged
as a Part Time Sweeper under the respondent Panchayat. Her
services were terminated with effect from 22/06/2004 and
according to the Panchayat, another person was engaged from
among those sponsored by the Employment Exchange, pursuant to
the directions of this Court in WP(C) No.19163/2004.
2. In these writ petitions, the claim of the petitioner is for
regularisation of her services on the basis of the Scheme formulated
by the Government for regularisation of Part Time Sweepers vide GO
(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005, and in particular, clause
10 thereof. This claim of the petitioner has been rejected by
Government Order dated 15/03/2007, a copy of which has been
produced as Ext.P6 in WP(C) No.12433/2007, on the ground that
the petitioner was a daily waged employee, and that daily waged
employees like the petitioner do not get the benefit of regularisation
WP(C) Nos. 9377 & 12433/2007
-2-
as contemplated in GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005.
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to Ext.P7 judgment dated 26/06/2009 in WP(C) No.2724/2006,
produced in WP(C) No.12433/2007. Ext.P7 judgment was rendered
based on the judgment in WP(C) Nos.19186/2005 & connected
cases. It is sated that in Ext.P7 judgment, the claim of daily waged
Part Time Sweepers for regularisation in terms of the Government
Order referred to above has been upheld by this Court. Further, the
learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice Ext.P8, copy
of GO(Rt.) No.1566/10/LSGD dated 10/05/2010 issued in
pursuance to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, and submits that
services of the daily waged Part Time Sweepers have been
regularised by the said Government Order. On this basis, learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P6 order rejecting the
petitioner’s claim for regularisation is unsustainable.
4. Prima facie, it would appear that the view taken by the
Government in Ext.P6 order runs counter to Ext.P7 judgment and
Ext.P8 Government Order. In that view of the matter, I feel that the
claim of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered.
5. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 1st
WP(C) Nos. 9377 & 12433/2007
-3-
respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for
regularisation of her service, in the light of the provisions contained
in GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005 and Exts.P7 & P8
referred to above, and as also subsequent orders clarifying GO(P)
No.501/2005/Fin. Orders in this behalf shall be passed as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of
production of a copy of this judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in
WP(C) No.9377/2007 this Court had passed interim order on
20/03/2007 directing that in case the Panchayat needs to fill up the
vacancy of Part Time Sweeper pending finalisation of the claim of
the petitioner, the petitioner shall be provisionally engaged, the
Panchayat did not engage the petitioner. In view of the above order,
it is directed that until orders are passed by the Government as
directed above, if the Panchayat needs to fill up the vacancy of Part
Time Sweeper, the same shall be done by provisionally engaging the
petitioner.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg