IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34669 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANJU.S, D/O. SETHUMADHAVAN, CASUAL SWEEPER, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA DISPENSARY, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICTR, RESIDING AT KALARICKAL HOUSE, CHADAYANAL, COYALMANNAM POST PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA DISPENSARY, KUZHALMANNAM. BY GOVT. PLEAER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.34669 OF 2009 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Part Time Sweeper working in the office of the 4th respondent since 1.9.1995. The claim of the petitioner is for regularization in terms of Ext.P2 Government Order. It is seen from Ext.P9 that the 4th respondent has already made a proposal in this behalf to the DMO, the 3rd respondent. From the representations that are made by the petitioner subsequently, it would appear that the 3rd respondent has not so far forwarded the proposal to the 2nd respondent for onward transmission to the first respondent. It is in this circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, he is eligible for the benefit of regularization as mentioned in Ext.P2, there is no reason why the claim shall not be considered. In any case the acceptance of the claim can only be on the basis of Ext.P9 proposal that was made by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent. 3. In view of the submission of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has not forwarded the proposal, the first thing to be WPC.No.34669 /09 :2 : done is that the 3rd respondent should forward the proposal to the 2nd respondent for award transmission to the first respondent. Accordingly, the writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to forward the proposal made by the 4th respondent in Ext.P9 to the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that on its receipt the 2nd respondent shall immediately forward the same to the first respondent who shall pass final orders in this matter. It is directed that the above process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/