IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29572 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.JAYAKUMARI W/O.CHRISTUDAS, PART-TIME SWEEPER CHENKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UDIYANKULANGARA AMARAVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHENKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY UDIYANKULANGARA, AMARAVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010 ALONG WITH W.P.(C)No.21172 of 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.29572 of 2009 & 21172 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29572 of 2009 was appointed by Chenkal Grama Panchayat as a part-time market sweeper. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21172 of 2010 is also a part-time market sweeper engaged by the Perunkadavila Grama Panchayat. Ext.P1 in these writ petitions are orders appointing them as part-time sweepers. 2. Their claim is for regularization in the service of the Panchayat on the strength of G.O.(P)No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005. On various occasions, petitioners approached this Court claiming benefit of regularization and this Court has also directed that their claims be considered by the Government. However, it is seen that, W.P.(C) Nos.29572 of 2009 & 21172 of 2010 -: 2 :- Government have ultimately rejected their claims on the ground that, market sweepers like them are not covered by the Government Order referred above. It is the correctness of this stand taken by the Government, which arises for consideration in these writ petitions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the various provisions contained in the Government Order referred above and contended that the petitioners are eligible for the benefit of regularization. However, a reading of the Government Order shows that the coverage of the Government Order is confined to part- time sweepers who are engaged to sweeping and cleaning government offices and its surroundings. This is also clear from the Annexure to the Government Order, providing the guidelines for determining the sweeping area. Therefore, the stand taken by the Government as reflected in the impugned order that market sweepers are not covered by the Government Order cannot be said to be faulty. The W.P.(C) Nos.29572 of 2009 & 21172 of 2010 -: 3 :- learned counsel for the petitioners however contended that there was no reason to discriminate the market sweepers. According to the learned counsel, when part-time sweepers are ordered to be regularized, irrespective of whether they are sweeping offices and its surroundings or markets, they should be treated as one class and on that basis, the benefit of regularization should be extended. 4. So long as the Government Order remains unchallenged, the claim of the petitioners will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Government Order. Government Order does not provide for regularization of market sweepers. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there are offices and buildings situated in the market, which are also swept by these sweepers. However, the presence of permanent structure of offices in a market, will not alter the character of the place and such a place cannot be included within the term office, used in the Government Order. W.P.(C) Nos.29572 of 2009 & 21172 of 2010 -: 4 :- 5. Irrespective of the fact that the petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of regularization as advised by the Government Order, fact remains that this is a matter which deserves the consideration of the Government. This is for the reason that the Government have decided to regularize one set of sweepers. There is also yet another reason for considering this issue. Even if the petitioners are displaced, necessarily for sweeping purposes, the Government will have to engage another set of fresh workers by recruitment from Employment Exchange, which means that there is always requirement of sweepers like the petitioners. 6. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent will consider whether the petitioners are to be extended the benefit of regularization as ordered in G.O.(P)No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005. Orders in that regard shall be passed within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that, in the mean while, until W.P.(C) Nos.29572 of 2009 & 21172 of 2010 -: 5 :- orders are passed, status quo as on today, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, will be maintained. 7. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with supporting materials before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt