IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2849 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MINI V.N, PART TIME SWEEPER P.H.SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAWAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRL REGION KERALA WATER AUTHORITY HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI 68201. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.2849 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been continuously working as a sweeper under the 3rd respondent for the last 15 years and more. According to the petitioner, in view of Government Order, G.O(P). No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005, the petitioner, as a part time sweeper in service as on the date of the Government order, is eligible for regularization in service. According to the petitioner, a post of part time sweeper is existing in the office of the 3rd respondent. The Water Authority, by Ext.P5 order, rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization in service in accordance with the said Government order, which has been adopted by the Water Authority, on the ground that the petitioner was an employee employed through a contractor. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to regularise the petitioner as Part Time Contingent Sweeper retrospectively w.e.f. 18.6.2001 and disburse the consequential benefits to her. ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to and culminating in Ext.P5 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and without application of mind.” 2. The learned standing counsel for the Water Authority strenuously contends that the petitioner was a contractor's employee and, therefore, she is not eligible for regularization in service. But this w.p.c.2849/11 2 contention is belied by Ext.P1 recommendation from the Assistant Executive Engineer, Thodupuzha, to the Executive Engineer, Thodupuzha, and Ext.P3 communication of the Chief Engineer of the Water Authority to the Managing Director of the Water Authority, wherein it has been specifically stated as follows; Smt.Mini.V.N.:- She has been engaged as Casual Sweeper at P.H. Sub Division, Thodupuzha from 1.7.1993 in the sanctioned post consequent to the retirement of Smt.Allyamma Mathew, P.T. Sweeper, Two section offices and Two IBS attached to P.H. Divison Thodupuzha. Her wages preferred in 'H.R.' from 7/1993 to 8/94 in her name. Thereafter, she has been continuing as Casual sweeper through Contract Labour and Wages are being paid (sic) contractor.” If the petitioner was a contractor's employee, then there is no question of paying wages directly to the petitioner. Ext.P3 shows that the petitioner was being paid salary directly by the Water Authority and not through a contractor. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner was the existing sweeper working in the 3rd respondent's office as on the date of the Government order, which has been accepted by the Water Authority. Even otherwise, even if the petitioner was employed through a contractor, evidently there is a regular post of sweeper and therefore the engagement through contractor is only a sham arrangement. Accordingly, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to regularization in service as a part time sweeper in the 3rd respondent's office. Insofar as Ext.P5 is contrary to the same, the same is quashed. The competent among the respondents is directed to pass orders granting benefits of w.p.c.2849/11 3 regularisation to the petitioner with arrears of wages, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge