IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20042 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAMMA S., AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. AYYAPPAN, PART - TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, PANANCHERI PANCHAYAT OFFICE, P.O.PATTIKKAD, RESIDING AT KOLANGARA HOUSE, P.O.PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THRISSUR. 4. PANANCHERI PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANANCHERI PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the Government Order dated 25.11.2005. Ext.P2. True copy of the communication No.A3-460/04 dated 20.8.2004, to 2nd respondent. Ext.P3. True copy of the resolution of 4th respondent Panchayat dated 13.2.2004. Ext.P4. True copy of the WP(c).No.25664/04 dated 18.7.2006. Ext.P5. True copy of the request made by the petitioner dated 9.8.2006. Ext.P6. True copy of the order of the Ist respondent dated 28.3.2007. // true copy// P.A to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20042 OF 2007(J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a part time sweeper engaged by the 4th respondent. On the strength of Ext.P1 Government Order No.501/05 dated 25.11.1005, petitioner sought regularization of her service. Ext.P2 proposal made by the Panchayat shows that the sweeping area was measured and assessed at 141.71 square meters. However, her claim was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P6 stating that the petitioner was a daily wage employee. According to the petitioner subsequently GO(P) No.61/2010/Fin. dated 9.2.2010 has been issued by the Government excluding only casual sweepers and that therefore she is entitled to have her service regularized. Reference is also made to Ext.P7, the Government Order dated 10.5.2010, which according to the petitioner has been issued in identical circumstances. 2. G.O(P).No.501/05 dated 25.11.2005, as clarified by the Government Order 61/2010 referred to above, shows that all existing sweepers other than casual sweepers irrespective of the mode of appointment are entitled to regularization. If that be so, WPC.No. 20042/07 :2 : necessarily, the decision taken by the Government as reflected in Ext.P6 rejecting her claim for regularization needs to be reconsidered. Therefore, I quash Ext.P6 and direct the first respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the provisions contained in G.O(P).Nos.501/2005 and 61/2010 referred to above. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/