IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34543 of 2008(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUJA V., D/O.VELUSWAMI, PART TIME SWEEPER, POOPARA VILLAGE OFFICE, POOPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPATMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. TAHSILDAR,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. SURESHKUMAR.K.N.,S/O.NARAYANAN.K.K., BLOCK NO.482,MUNDIYERUMA P.O., IDUKKI DIST. 5. RAMADEVI P.R. C/O.RAMAN PILLAI, POTTANKUNNEL VEEDU, UPPUTHODU P.O. GOURI CITY, IDUKKI DT. 6. MARYKUTTY THOMAS, C/O.THOMAS, KURUVANTHANATHU VEEDU, KADAMAKKUZHI P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. K.U.ANTO, C/O.K.U.ULAHANNAN, KANNUVELIL VEEDU,ELAPPARA P.O. IDUKKI DT. 685 501. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN R4 BY ADV.MR.A.C.DEVASIA R5,R6&R7BY ADVS.MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, MR.GEORGE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.34543/2008 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.11970 OF 2003 (Y). EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A6/40586/08 DTD. 18/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34543 of 2008-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Part-time Sweeper working in the office of Pooppara Village Office, Idukki District. Earlier she was working in the Office of Chinnakkanal Village Office from where she was transferred to Pooppara Village Office during June 2008. She is one of the petitioners in O.P.No.11970/2003 which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. This court held that the petitioners are eligible to salary in the scale of pay applicable to Part-time Sweeper appointed on regular basis. Appropriate orders were directed to be passed. According to the petitioner, she is working as a Casual Sweeper since the year 2000 and the Sweeping area covered by the petitioner is 101.38 sq. m. It is stated that steps for getting regularisation were in progress, but while so, by Ext.P2 a new Sweeper was sought to be appointed in the place of the petitioner. It is stated that as she is entitled for regularisation, Ext.P2 cannot survive. Even if regularisation does not happen, she is entitled to get pay protection. It is pointed out that the appointment of fresh hands is illegal and against the directions contained in G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. Dated 25.11.2005. WPC 34543/2008 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is averred that the petitioner has been working as Casual Sweeper in the Village Office, Chinnakkanal from 1.6.2000 to 1.1.2008 and thereafter she is working in the present Village Office and she is being paid salary at Rs.1250/- + D.A. per month. It is also pointed out that the proposal for regularisation of Casual Sweepers as Part-time Sweepers has been submitted to the Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram by letter dated 7.2.2007 including the petitioner's name. So far, orders have not been passed in the matter. 4. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is clear that steps for regularising the petitioner are pending before the Land Revenue Commissioner. It cannot be disputed that Govt. Order dated 25.11.2005 confer various benefits on Part-time Sweepers like the petitioner. The said right cannot be defeated by appointing fresh hands and by replacing the petitioner. To replace existing Casual Sweepers the said scheme does not envisage any fresh hand. Herein, going by the scheme, the petitioner is entitled for various benefits. If that be so, Ext.P2 by which a fresh hand is sought to be appointed in her place, cannot be WPC 34543/2008 3 supported. It is declared so. 5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on the application for regularisation in the case of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Depending upon the outcome of the order, the petitioner will be entitled to various benefits. It is also declared that for appointing fresh hands, she cannot be terminated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rights of respondents 4 to 7 for accommodation in any other vacancy, may be protected. It is up to the second respondent to take action in the matter and the disposal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of passing appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/