IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2286 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.M.SURENDRAN, AGED 44, S/O.MARTHANDAN, CASUAL SWEEPER, KRISHI BHAVAN, RESIDING AT MOOSARUKUDY HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL (FARMS) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTAPPADY. 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (FINANCE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.NANDAKUMAR.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2286 of 2009(V) APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: COPY OF ORDER No.G.O.(P) No.361/05/Fin.DATED 2.8.05 Ext.P2: COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD BUILDING SECTION, KOTHAMANGALAM. Ext.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 9.1.2006 FORWARDED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT. Ext.P4: COPY OF ORDER No.G.O(MS) No.121/07/AD DATED 21.7.07. /True copy/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2286 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a casual sweeper in the office of the 5th respondent. He has been regularly engaged for sweeping since 1.9.1987 onwards. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the 3rd respondent to include his name in the list of persons to be regularised as part time contingent sweepers in Kottappady Krishi Bhavan. 2. According to the petitioner the sweeping area in the office is more than 100Sq.mtrs. This is strongly refuted by the respondents. According to them the sweeping area is less than 100 Sq. mtrs. The entitlement of the petitioner for regularisation as part time contingent sweeper depends on the resolution of the said disputed fact. Though the petitioner is claiming for regularisation based on Ext.P1 Government Order dated 2.8.2005, I am afraid, that cannot be considered as the same was revoked and W.P.(C).No.2286/2009 2 G.O.No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.05, is the Government Order, now in force in the subject matter. Therefore the claim of the petitioner for regularisation can be considered only in the light of said Government order dated 25.11.2005. Application of the petitioner dated 9.1.2006 claiming regularisation has already been forwarded by the 5th respondent to the first respondent. According to the petitioner the sweeping area of the Krishi Bhavan office, Kottappady has been recently measured and Ext.P2 is the sketch pertaining to the same. 3. In view of th fact that the matter has been pending consideration of the first respondent, since 2006 onwards and the crucial fact for determining the entitlement of the petitioner for regularisation viz. the extent of the sweeping area, is under dispute there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 representation taking into account Ext.P2. The petitioner contends that though the claim of several similarly situated persons have W.P.(C).No.2286/2009 3 been favourably considered as is obvious from Ext.P4 he has been arbitrarily discriminated. It is his case that in view of the subsequent measurement of the Krishi Bhavan building, Kottappady, the matter requires fresh consideration by the first respondent. 4. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to file fresh representation annexing copy of Ext.P2 sketch showing the measurement of the said building, to the first respondent for fresh consideration of his claim for regularisation. In the event of receipt of such a representation from the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the receipt of copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the first respondent expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. SOU.