IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11286 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.SANTHA, PART TIME SWEEPER PORKULAM POANCHAYATH PORKULAM,TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD SRI.V.D.BALAKRISHNA KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH AYYANTHOLE TRICHUR 680 003. 4. THE SECRETARY PORKULAM PANCHAYATH P.O.PORKULAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT 680 542. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 11286 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a part-time sweeper in the Porkulam Panchayat in Thrissur district. She filed W.P(C) No. 36688/2007 seeking regularisation in service. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext. P7 judgment, which reads as follows: “The petitioner is working as a casual sweeper in the Porkulam Panchayat, according to her, from July 1992 onwards. She is being paid a monthly salary of Rs. 600/-. She contends that the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department measured the sweeping area serviced by her and found it to be 320.97 sq. metres. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to monthly wages of Rs. 1,250/- + D.A going by G.O.(P) 501/2005, according to her. By Ext. P2 resolution, the Panchayat resolved that the petitioner be regularized in service with effect from 1.3.2007. Ext. P3 is the consequential decision taken by the Secretary on the basis of Ext. P2. The petitioner submitted Ext. P4 before the Deputy Director of Panchayats seeking areas of wages o the basis of Ext. P1 G.O. By Ext. P5 order, the Director of Panchayats required the Secretary of the Panchayat to set aside Ext. P2 resolution under Section 182 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner challenges Ext. P5. The question as to whether the casual sweepers working in the Panchayats are also entitled to benefits similar to the one conferred under G.O (P) 501/2005 is to be considered by the Government. It has to be noted that in this case the Panchayat Committee has passed Ext. P2 resolution deciding to regularize the services of the petitioner. The Director has proceeded to require the Secretary to rescind the resolution. Such direction has been issued without notice to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the issue is now pending before the Government as evidenced by Ext. P6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to independently look into Ext. P6 and take a decision thereon keeping in mind the directions issued by this Court in W.P(C) No. 13828/2007 and connected cases. In view of the fact that the Panchayat had decided to regularise the petitioner's service under Ext. P2 resolution, she shall be permitted to continue in service till a decision is taken by Government in Ext. P6. The petitioner is at liberty to file an W.P(C) No. 11286 of 2011 -: 2 :- additional representation before the Government. Government shall take a decision on the proposal for regularizing the petitioner's service as decided by the the petitioner, untrammeled by Ext. P5.” Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has filed Ext. P8 representation. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the directions in Ext. P7 judgment have not yet been complied with. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. It is true that in Ext. P7 judgment, no time limit has been prescribed. But that does not mean that the Government can sit on that judgment for ever. 3 years have already elapsed since the judgment. As such, I am of opinion that non- compliance with that direction would even amount to contempt of court, although no time limit has been prescribed therein. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to see that the directions in Ext. P7 judgment are complied with in letter and spirit, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already done. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.