IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33908 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.SAJEEV, PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, KALLARA VILLAGE OFFICE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKIOM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLARA. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33908 OF 2009 (G) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Part Time Sweeper in the Village Office, Kallara, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District. According to the petitioner since 1996, he has been working as such. It is stated that as the sweeping area is more than 100m2 he is entitled to the benefit of GO(P) No. 501/05/Fin dated 25/11/2005 by regularising his services. However, according to the petitioner, proceedings have not been initiated and therefore the writ petition. 2. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that though pursuant to Ext.P2, though the petitioner was paid consolidated salary of Rs.1000/- plus DA, which was revised to Rs.1250/- plus DA, it has since been reduced to Rs.1000 plus DA. 3. As far as the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the basis of GO(P) No.501/05/Fin dated 25/11/2005 is concerned, if as stated, the sweeping area is more than 100m2, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be considered. Therefore, in order to do the same, it is for the 4th respondent to make necessary proposal to the 2nd respondent, who in turn has to place WPC 33908/09 :2 : the same before the 1st respondent for passing orders in the matter. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 4th respondent to make necessary proposal to the 2nd respondent, who shall place proposal before the 1st respondent for necessary orders. 5. As far as the claim of the petitioner for restoration of monitory benefits claimed by him is concerned, I leave it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the authorities. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent to make necessary proposal. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp