IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37532 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.G.SUJATHA, PART TIME SWEEPER, CHENNEERKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OONNUKAL P.O., OMALLUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., PIN-689 647. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. CHENNEERKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CHENNEERKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OONNUKAL P.O., OMALLUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.37532/2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DT. 21.5.1996. EXT.P2 DO. DT. 30.6.1997. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 6.5.2006. EXT.P4 GOVT. ORDER DT. 25.11.2005. EXT.P5 OFFICE NOTICE DT.14.7.2006. EXT.P6 LETTER DT. 7.7.2006. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 12.2.2007. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 30.10.2006. EXT.P9 RESOLUTION DT. 30.8.2006. EXT.P10 LETTER DT. 19.2.2007. EXT.P11 CERTIFICATE DT. 20.2.2007. EXT.P12 LETTER DT. 19.7.2008. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. 24684/2008. EXT.P14 GOVT. ORDER DT. 15.7.2010. EXT.P15 JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 2085/2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 37532 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a part-time sweeper in the office of 4th respondent-Panchayat. She seeks regularization on the basis of Ext. P4 Government Order. But she has not been given that benefit, is the grievance of the petitioner. She submits that by Ext. P3 letter, the Government has clarified that Ext. P4 Government Order is applicable to Panchayat employees also. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as a part time sweeper; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refrain from terminating the service of the petitioner; iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service without being retrenched.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by Ext. P13 judgment. Ext. P13 judgment reads as follows: “This writ petition is filed mainly seeking for regularisation of the petitioner in the service of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat as Part-time Sweeper. The petitioner contends that in the light of Ext.P8 letter issued by the Director of Panchayats, in respect of a daily waged Sweeper in Elanthur Grama Panchayat, the Panchayat is trying to terminate her service also. 2. The petitioner has been working as a Part-time Sweeper from 5.1.2000 in the 4th respondent Panchayat. The sweeping area covered by the petitioner is 273.29m2 . As per Ext.P1 letter issued by the first respondent, the Director of Panchayats was directed to consider the regularisation of service of the Part-time Sweepers in accordance with G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 stating that the provisions of the said Govt. Order can be made applicable to the casual W.P(C) No. 37532/07 -: 2 :- sweepers in the Panchayats also. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Govt. Order dated 25.11.2005. 3. The Panchayat passed a resolution recommending grant of the benefit to the petitioner as per Ext.P3. By Ext.P4, they have regularised her service with effect from 18.6.2001 in accordance with the terms of Ext.P2. For creating the post of Part-time Sweeper, the Panchayat has passed a resolution as per Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 is the application in the form prescribed . Ext.P7 is the sweeping area certificate. 3. In Ext.P8, the stand taken is that the concerned sweeper was working on daily wages and as such, she is not entitled for the benefit of Ext.P2. The petitioner points out that the said stand taken in Ext.P8 is not correct in the light of the specific provisions contained in Exts.P1 and P2. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that as regards casual sweepers who are working on a monthly remuneration of Rs.600/-, the Government will have to extend the benefit as per Ext.P1, to them. It is pointed out that the petitioner being a daily waged sweeper, is not entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P2. It is also pointed out that the Panchayat is not competent to regularise her service. 5. The question is whether Ext.P2 will apply to the persons like the petitioner. The question whether the benefit of Ext.P2 will apply to daily waged sweepers, has been decided by this court in a batch of cases in Writ Petition No.19186/2005 and connected cases. The question was elaborately considered and ultimately it is found that the benefit could be granted. Detailed findings have been rendered therein directing the authorities to confer the benefits on the respective petitioners therein also. In Ext.P1 dated 6.5.2006, after referring to the various circumstances, it has been made clear that the scheme framed under Ext.P3 will be applicable to casual sweepers appointed in the Panchayats, prior to 9.9.2005 (the date of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1863/2004). 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P2 Govt. Order dated 25.11.2005. The first respondent will take appropriate action on Ext.P6 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be entitled for such benefits as are available as per Ext.P2 Govt. Order along with consequential monetary benefits.” W.P(C) No. 37532/07 -: 3 :- Against the same, the State had filed W.A.No. 2085/2009, which was dismissed by Ext. P15 judgment. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by Ext. P13 judgment. That being so, this writ petition is allowed in terms of Ext. P13 judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/