High Court Kerala High Court

Thankamma K.K vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Thankamma K.K vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13358 of 2007(M)


1. THANKAMMA K.K.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,

3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :17/08/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                   W.P.(C.) No.13358 of 2007 (M)
              ---------------------------------
             Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

According to the petitioner, she is working as Part Time

Sweeper in Krishi Bhavan, Elamkunnapuzha in Ernakulam District

since 02/06/1989. It is stated that she is entitled to the benefit of

regularisation in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P2

Government Order. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P1 Sweeping Area

Certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, in which the

sweeping area is found to be 108.79 sq.m. According to the

petitioner, despite of the above, she submitted Ext.P3 application

for the benefit of regularisation and orders of regularisation have

not been passed by the respondents. It is in these circumstances,

this writ petition has been filed.

2. From the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it

would appear that the Officials of the Finance (Inspection-Technical

Wing) Department inspected Krishi Bhavan, Elamkunnappuzha for

verifying the sweeping area and it was reported that the actual

WP(C) No.13358/2007
-2-

sweeping area of Krishi Bhavan, Elamkunnapuzha is only 78.02

sq.m. It is stated that since the sweeping area is less than 100

sq.m., the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation as per Ext.P2

Government Order.

3. However, fact remains that verification by the Finance

Department was done without issuing notice to the petitioner.

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner relying on Ext.P1 Sweeping

Area Certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer could not

have been rejected, on the basis that such a certificate was obtained

as per the verification done by the Finance Department without

issuing notice to her.

In that view of the matter, I direct that the 4th respondent shall

get the area swept by the petitioner measured by the Executive

Engineer of the PWD in terms of the guidelines incorporated in GO

(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005, and if the sweeping area

is certified to be more than 100 sq.m., the 4th respondent will

submit a proposal for regularistion of the petitioner’s service to the

2nd respondent, who shall take up the matter with the 1st

respondent. Thereupon the 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders

WP(C) No.13358/2007
-3-

dealing with the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of her

services. The Sweeping Area Certificate shall be obtained by the 4th

respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six

weeks from today and if a proposal is received, the 1st respondent

shall pass orders in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within three months of its receipt.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg