IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17947 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SUHASINI, CASUAL SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE FOOD INSPECTOR, MANJERI CIRCLE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (P) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17947/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that she is a Casual Sweeper in the office of the Food Inspector, Manjeri, since April, 2002. She claims the benefit of G.O.(P).No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005 providing for regularization of Sweepers. According to the petitioner, proposal of regularization was made by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent in turn, has placed it before the 1st respondent for orders. On receipt of the proposal, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P3 directing the 2nd respondent to make a consolidated proposal covering details of all employees rather than making piecemeal proposals. Petitioner submits that as of now, no proposal as directed in Ext.P3 has been made as a result of which her case has not been considered. 2. If, as stated by the petitioner, she is entitled to the benefit of G.O.(P).No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005 referred to above, it is the duty of the respondents to consider the proposal made by the 3rd W.P.(C).17947/10 2 respondent for regularizing the service of the petitioner. The fact that the piecemeal proposals are made and that consolidated proposal has not been made by the 2nd respondent, is no reason for the delay in considering the request of the petitioner. 3. Therefore I direct the 1st respondent to consider the proposal made by respondents 2 and 3 for regularization of the petitioner as reflected in Ext.P2. Orders on Ext.P2 shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs