IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37677 of 2008(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.N.SREENIVASAN, PART-TIME SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICTCOLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD. 2. A.S.CHANDRIKA, PART-TIME SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICTCOLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD. BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.T.R.RENJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICTCOLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI ANTONY MUKKATH GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 37677 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are part-time Sweepers working in the office of the District Collector, Ernakulam. Earlier they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.16871/2003 claiming the salary payable to regular hands and also regularisation of service. As per Ext.P1 judgment, it was found that the petitioners were not entitled to be regularised in service. However, it was held that they are entitled to salary at the rate provided in G.O(P)No.3000/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 with reference to the area available for sweeping. Further it was held that they were entitled to arrears after deducting the amounts already paid with effect from 25.11.1998. Ext.P3 is the G.O. on the subject of regularisation of existing eligible casual sweepers and appointments against future arising vacancies of sweepers in Government Offices published on 25.11.2005. In fact, prior to the issuance of the same the W.P.(C) NO. 37677 OF 2008 2 petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.10852/04. The contention raised therein was that considering the sweeping area wherein the petitioners are engaged for sweeping they were entitled to get basic pay at the rate sanctioned for sweeping for 400 sq. mtrs. to 800 sq. mtrs and to get their service regularised as Part-Time Sweepers. Admittedly, at that point of time they were given wages only at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. Evidently, the claim of the petitioner would not have been entertained by this Court in W.P.(C).No.10852/2004 in the light of Ext.P1 and it is only because of Ext.P3 order dated 25.11.2005 that the petitioners were able to resurrect the question of regularisation. As per Ext.P6 judgment this Court directed the 2nd respondent therein to consider the petitions submitted by the petitioners for regularising their service taking into account the relevant aspects in the light of Ext.P3 G.O. dated 25.11.05. Later, the entitlement of the petitioners for regularisation in the light of Ext.P3 G.O was considered and the 1st respondent herein passed Ext.P7 W.P.(C) NO. 37677 OF 2008 3 order dated 20.08.2008. As per the same the petitioners were appointed as Part-Time Sweeper in the scale of pay of Rs.2,300/-+D.A with effect from 19.3.2007. Admittedly, the petitioners were given arrears of salary in terms of Ext.P7 with effect from 19.03.2007. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by Ext.P7 order to the extent it ordered their appointment only with effect from 19.03.2007 with prayers to declare that they are entitled to be regularised as Part-Time Sweepers with effect from the date of their appointment in December,2000 as casual sweepers in the office of the 1st respondent and also the arrears of salary as per Ext.P3 G.O. read with Ext.P1 judgment (sic.,Ext.P6 judgment) at the rate fixed by the Government in G.O.(P) No.3000/Fin.,dt.25.11.1998 and subsequent orders revising the pay of Part-Time Sweeper in the service of the 2nd respondent and to grant the said benefits. 2. The first respondent filed counter affidavit in this writ petition refuting the claims and contentions of the petitioners. As per the averments made in paragraphs 4 W.P.(C) NO. 37677 OF 2008 4 therein the petitioners got entitlement to regularisation only on account of the increase in the sweeping area due to the renovation of the Collectorate from 8.02.2007. Though the sweeping area was increased only from 8.02.2007and they got entitlement for appointment only with effect from that date, in the matter of their appointment the date of Ext.P6 judgment was taken as the date of entitlement and accordingly, they were given appointment with effect from the date of Ext.P6 judgment viz.,19.3.2007 and arrears of salary based on such regularisation was also given with effect from 19.03.07. 3. The question is whether the petitioners can claim for regularisation with effect from the date of their initial appointment in December 2000. In fact, going by Ext.P1 judgment they were not at all entitled to get regularisation. The question of entitlement of regularisation concluded against the petitioners as per Ext.P1 judgment got resurrected only on account of Ext.P3 G.O dated 25.11.2005. Therefore, the petitioners can claim regularisation only in W.P.(C) NO. 37677 OF 2008 5 accordance with Ext.P3 G.O 25.11.1998. Clause 8 of Ext.P3 G.O is relevant for the purpose of this case. It reads thus:- “Presently, there is no clarity on what constitutes sweeping area. Even when actual sweeping area is less than 100 sq.,mtrs., there is a tendency to include area which are not normally swept (eg.Large courtyard and compound) to show a sweeping area more than 100 sq., mtrs., so that the casual sweeper gets a claim for regularization. The same applies when the actual sweeping area is just below 400 sq.,mtrs.(so that the remuneration increases from Rs.1250/- to Rs.1500/-per month).” Going by the said G.O, the entitlement of regularisation depends on the extent of the area available for sweeping as far as a casual Part-Time Sweeper is concerned. The said position is not under dispute. In the instant case the specific stand of the respondent is that it is only on account of the renovation of the Collectorate effected from 8.02.2007 that the petitioners earned eligibility for regular appointment. This position has not been controverted by filing a reply affidavit or by producing materials to prove the contrary. In the circumstances there is no reason to repel the respondent's contention. The W.P.(C) NO. 37677 OF 2008 6 learned Government Pleader further submitted that though they were eligible to get regular appointment only with effect from that date viz., from 8.02.2007 considering the fact that Ext.P6 judgment was rendered on 19.03.2007 the petitioners were given regular appointment with effect from that date. Admittedly, they were given arrears of salary with effect from 19.03.2007. Hence, the claims of the petitioners for arrears of salary and also regularisation from the date of initial engagement that is December 2000 cannot be granted in the aforesaid circumstances. I think the petitioners are not legally entitled to claim anything more than what was granted as per Ext.P7. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly it is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. mns