IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1193 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7580/2009 Dated 20/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN WP(c): -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS(ADVICE)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISTION (GENERAL) CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX(KGST)CIVIL STATION,ALAPPUZHA. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC: ----------------------------------------------------------- S.LEELA, W/O.VISWAMBARAN, THALIPARAMBU VELI, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.1193/2010 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS Annexure A1: A Photocopy of the judgment dated 1.9.2006 in COC No.246/2006. Annexure AII: A Photocopy of the order dt 8.1.2010 in RP No.1197/2009 in WP(C) No.7580/2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 1193 OF 2010 =================== Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The respondents in WP(C) No.7580/2009 are the appellants. 2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein praying to quash Ext.P7 whereby the appellants herein rejected the claim of the respondent for regularisation of her service as Part Time Sweeper in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P4 GO(P) No.501/05/Fin. dated 25/11/2005. The only reason stated in Ext.P7 order for rejecting the claim of the respondent was that she was not sanctioned the regular scale of pay of Part Time Sweeper. This reason has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge to be irrelevant while considering the claim for regularisation in terms of Ext.P4. It is on that ground the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P7. In view of the provisions contained in Ext.P4 Government Order, we see absolutely no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 3. From the facts of this case we also note that even WA No.1193/2010 : 2 : according to the appellants, the respondent has been engaged as Part Time Sweeper from 5/6/2005 and has been continuing since then. It is also the admitted case that the sweeping area of the office in question is more than 1000 sq. meters. Taking note of this, learned Judge has rightly held that the respondent is entitled to have her services as Part Time Sweeper regularized. In the light of these facts, there is absolutely no reason calling for interference with the directions in the judgment. Writ appeal is only to be dismissed and we do so. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp