IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2044 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26149/2008 Dated 17/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC. ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & R4 IN THE WPC. ------------------------------------------ 1. ANITHA KUMARI K., PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER,EARETHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH P.O.,VADAKKADATHUKAVU,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SECRETARY, EARETHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH P.O., VADAKKADATHUKAVU,ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2044 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Ravikumar, J. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No.26149 of 2008 are the appellants. The first respondent/writ petitioner filed the said Writ Petition mainly with the prayer to regularise her service as Part-time Sweeper based on Ext.P3 Government Order (G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin) dated 25.11.2005. The learned Single Judge held that the said Government Order is applicable to casual labourers like the petitioner and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal. 2. The learned senior Government Pleader firstly contended that Ext.P3 Government Order deals only with the regularisation of existing casual sweepers and not that of daily wage employees like the petitioner. Therefore, the finding that the said Government Order deals with the case of daily wage employees is absolutely contrary to the facts. Further, it was contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that this Court W.A. NO.2044/2009 2 had considered whether the claims of the daily wage sweepers are covered by Ext.P3 in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19186 of 2005 is also not factually correct. In short, the contention of the appellants is that Ext.P3 Government Order covers only the cases of casual sweepers and not daily wage sweepers and, therefore, the writ petitioner ought not to have been found entitled to get the benefit of the said Government Order. 3. Yet another contention raised by the appellants was that any declaration by this Court that all casual sweepers are entitled to the benefit for Ext.P3 Government Order irrespective of the nature of their engagement would lead to a situation whereby all casually engaged Part- time Sweepers would get the benefit of regularisation. According to us, the contentions raised by the appellants as also the aforesaid apprehension are bereft of any basis. The essence of all the judgments of this Court on the subject of regularisation of casual sweepers would reveal that what matters while considering their entitlement to regularisation is not the mode of payment, but the nature of work, viz. whether it is regular and continuous. In other words, whether a casual sweeper is paid on a regular basis or on monthly basis is of no relevance and the relevant factor is whether the work is regular and continuous in nature. If there is regular and continuous engagement, a Part-time Sweeper is definitely entitled to W.A. NO.2044/2009 3 get similar treatment as in the case of the petitioners covered by the earlier decision provided his/her appointment was prior to 9.9.2005. In this case, the petitioner has been working as Part-time Sweeper under the 4th respondent continuously from August, 2001 onwards. Ext.P1 certificate would show that the sweeping area in the concerned office of the Panchayat is 480 m². That apart, it is evident from Ext.P4 that the Panchayat had passed a resolution in favour of the first respondent in the matter of regularisation of her service. In the said circumstances obtained in this case, the conclusions and findings of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The declaration that the first respondent is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P3 Government Order ( (G.O. (P) No.501/2005/Fin) dated 25.11.2005 is only an inescapable conclusion of the said finding. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO.2044/2009 4 KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO. 2044/2009 JUDGMENT 16th November, 2009 W.A. NO.2044/2009 5