IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 10774 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. R.JAYASREE, D/O.LATE RAMDAS, PART-TIME SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND TRIBUNAL,KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. HEMAVATHY, W/O.GANGOJI RAO, PART-TIME SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, ,KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), KASARAGOD TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION,KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10774/2008 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/11/2003 IN O.P.NO.35789/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ASST.ENGINEER, PWD, BUILDING SECTION, KASARGOD. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER NO.72130/1/08/RD DTD.2/02/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 12/08/2005 IN W.A.NO.1863. EXT.P5: COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.501/2005/FIN. DTD. 25/11/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10774 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are casual sweepers presently working in the office of the Special Tahsildar (LR), Kasargode. According to them, they have been working as casual sweepers since 1.10.1998 and 1.5.1996 respectively. While so, they were paid fixed remuneration. They had approached this court in W.P.(C) No.35789/03, which was disposed of under Ext.P1 judgment directing the Government to pass orders as regards the claim for parity in wages pleaded by the petitioners, depending upon the area swept by the petitioners. 2. It seems that the sweeping area serviced by the petitioners were originally assessed excluding certain areas on the basis of the circular issued by the Government which was later withdrawn. Considering the area swept by them, it was later assessed as above 100 sq.m and it is so affirmed by the learned Government Pleader. But, by Ext.P3 order it was ordered by the Government, that the post of part time sweeper cannot be W.P.(C).No.10774 of 2008 :: 2 :: sanctioned in relation to the offices wherein the petitioners are working, because they are temporary in nature. Ext.P3 has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents separately. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader. 5. Sanction of the post of part time sweeper and regularisation of casual sweepers are governed by G.O.(P) No.501/05/Fin dated 25.11.2005. The said Government order does not make a distinction amongst Government Offices as such, with reference to whether they are a permanent government office or temporary as is now sought to be made. May be, the office of the Special Tahsildar (LA) will continue till such time as the acquisition proceedings are over. But the staff working in such offices are not temporary staff whose work will depend only on the existence of any land acquisition proceedings. The Special Tahsildar (LA) is an officer in the Revenue Department like any other Government servant. The stand taken by the Government in Ext.P3 is not correct and is W.P.(C).No.10774 of 2008 :: 3 :: unsustainable. It has brought in a distinction that is not contemplated in G.O.(P)No.501/05/Fin dated 25.11.2005. The petitioners' claims are eligible to be considered in terms of the said Government Order. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed. The Government is directed to pass fresh orders in terms of G.O.(P)No.501/05/Fin dated 25.11.2005 and in the light of the observations made above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners' claim for parity in wages pleaded by them on a par with the part time sweepers will be decided according to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Ext.P4. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//