IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26160 of 2007(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- RAJAMMA K.P., W/O. AYYAPPAN, PART-TIME SWEEPER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PANDIMANA, PANDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.V.THAMBAN MR.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PINDIMANA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), ERNAKULAM. 3. DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. T.K. NIRMALA, PART-TIME SWEEPER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PINDIMANA, PINDIMANA (PO), KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH FOR R.5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26160/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GOVT. CIRCULAR NO.7300/ADV/C3-06/P & ARD DT. 19.7.06. P2:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR A3-13378/06 DT. 4.8.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 12.8.05 IN WA. 1863/04. P4:- COPY OF THE GOVT. GO(P) 501/05/FIN. DT. 25.11.05. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 22.1.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 21.2.07 IN WPC. 2315/07. P7:- COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.2354/07/H *FWD DT. 29.6.07. P8:- COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER 6438/H2/06/LSGD DT. 8.5.06. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.26160 of 2007-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Part-time sweeper in the Primary Health Centre, Pindimana. According to her, she was originally engaged as Part-time Sweeper with effect from 18.10.1997 against a vacancy that arose due to the promotion of previous incumbent, one Smt. Usha as Full time Sweeper. Initially she was being paid at the rate of Rs.40/- per day which was being enhanced from time to time and from 2003 onwards the remuneration was enhanced to Rs.66/- per day. It is stated that depending upon the sweeping area which is above 800M2, she is entitled for a regular scale of pay at the rate of Rs.1500/- + DA per month from 18.10.1997. She approached the Government by filing Ext.P5 representation, in the light of Ext.P4 Government Order dated 25.11.2005. The said Government Order confers benefits like protection of wages and regularization. Subsequently, she was terminated from service also and she challenged the same in Writ Petition No.2315/ 2007. By Ext.P6 judgment, the said writ petition was disposed of. In para 4, this court held thus: wpc 26160/2007 2 “The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5 after calling for necessary reports from respondents 1 to 3. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be given temporary employment as Part Time Sweeper in the existing vacancy. She shall be allowed to continue till decision is taken on Ext.P5 representation.” Thereafter, she was reappointed. Ultimately, by Ext.P7, the Government rejected the claim stating that she was being engaged only on daily wages against a sanctioned post and therefore the petitioner’s case does not come under the purview of Government Order dated 25.11.2005. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P8 clarification issued by the Government on 8.5.2006 stating that daily wage Part-time Sweepers in the Panchayats are entitled for the benefit of the Government Order dated 25.11.2005. 2. After Ext.P7 order was passed, the petitioner was terminated from service and the 5th respondent was appointed through Employment Exchange. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The Government Order, Ext.P4 does not distinguish between daily wpc 26160/2007 3 wage sweepers and casual sweepers. In various offices part-time sweepers were being engaged on daily wages on casual basis and on other basis. The question whether such sweepers are entitled for regularization was considered by this court in Mercy v. State of Kerala (2004 (2) KLT 848) which stands confirmed by the Division Bench in Ext.P3 judgment. Thereafter, the Government has brought out a scheme as per Ext.P4. 5. The question whether casual sweepers and daily wage sweepers are covered by the said scheme was finally determined by this court recently in a batch of cases, viz. Writ Petition No.19186/2005 and connected cases. After elaborately considering the matter, this court held that the persons working on daily wages will also be covered by the provisions of the Govt. Order dated 25.11.2005. 5. Apart from that, Ext.P8 will show that the Government itself had solved this problem earlier, though issued in respect of a different department and the view taken is that daily wage part-time sweepers are also covered by Ext.P4. Hence, I do not see any ground to reject the contention of the petitioner relying on Ext.P4 even though the Primary Health Centre comes under the Department of Health and Family Welfare. 6. Ext.P7 is therefore quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P4 (G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated wpc 26160/2007 4 25.11.2005) The 4th respondent will consider the matter fresh in the light of the findings rendered above and grant various reliefs as are allowable to the petitioner as per Ext.P4. Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. In the light of the fact that the 5th respondent is now working there, once the order is passed as directed above, the 5th respondent will be reposted in any available vacancy, preferably in the same locality. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/