IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15306 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN K.K, S/O.T.KRISHNAN, NOONHI HOUSE, RAJAPURAM P.O., KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (HOMEO) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HOMEO MEDICAL SERVICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMEO), KASARGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15306 of 2008 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the order dated 12.8.2003. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the order dated 15.11.2003. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the order dated 19.2.2004. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the order dated 21.5.2004. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the order dated 23.7.2004. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the order dated 25.10.2004. Ext.P7 :- Copy of the order dated 5.1.2005. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the representation dated 20.2.2007 filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Ext.P9 :- Copy of the judgment dated 28.3.2007 in W.P.(C)No.10802/2007. Ext.P10 :- Copy of G.O.(Rt)No.3794/2007/H & FWD dated 5.11.2007. Ext.P11 :- Copy of G.O.(P)501/2005 dt.25.11.2005. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15306 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he was a Part Time Sweeper in the Rajapuram Government Homeo Dispensary in Kasaragod District from 22.1.2003 till 3.5.2005 and again till 5.9.2005. He claimed regularization of his services by filing Ext.P8 representation dated 20.2.2007. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P9 judgment, representation was considered and Ext.P10 order has been passed rejecting his claims. In Ext.P10, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged, with break in service, during the period from 22.1.2003 to 5.9.2005 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1,250/- per month. It is further stated that the sweeping area was got measured and was found to be only 68.36 sq.mts and that in terms of the provisions contained in G.O.(P)No.501/2005 W.P.(C) No.15306 of 2008 -: 2 :- dated 25.11.2005, regularization is possible only if the sweeping area is more than 100 sq.mts. Therefore, for the reason that the sweeping area is less than 100 sq.mts and that the petitioner was already disengaged with from 5.9.2005, his claim for regularization was rejected. It is this order, which is challenged in this writ petition. 2. If the sweeping area is found to be less than 100 sq.mts, regularization cannot be claimed and that finding in Ext.P10 order, is perfectly consistent with the provisions contained in the Government Order referred above. 3. Then the only question is whether the petitioner is to be reengaged. Retention, regularization and payment of wages to part time sweepers are covered in the Government Order referred above. Clause 9 of the Government Order states that if, on refixation of the sweeping area, it is found to be less than 100 sq.mts. and if there is a casual sweeper already working, he shall continue without disruption with monetary benefits. This Government Order was issued on 25.11.2005 and as on that date, the petitioner was not in W.P.(C) No.15306 of 2008 -: 3 :- service. If so, the petitioner was not a casual sweeper already working, to claim continuance without disruption. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even apart from the provisions of the Government Order referred above, in view of the directions contained in paragraph 14 of the decision reported in Mercy v. State of Kerala [2004(2) KLT 848] petitioner should have been retained in service. But in this case, the disengagement of the petitioner has been done as per the provisions contained in the Government Order referred above. In my view, there is no illegality in sending out the petitioner and petitioner's claim for retention is unsustainable. Therefore, writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt