IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 2828 of 2007 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3288/2006 Dated 18/07/2007 ................................. APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOTTICKAL, KOOTTICKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- VASANTHI M.P., PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOOTTICKAL, KOOTTICKAL P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.2828 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 7th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Respondent/petitioner was working in the Village office, Koottickal, Kanjirappally as sweeper from 1988 onwards. Being a part- time work, she was paid only Rs.600/= per month as remuneration. Since the sweeping area at that time was more than 100 square metres, she claimed enhancement of remuneration and she filed O.P.No. 10059/2003. By judgment dated 29th May, 2003 it was held by a learned single Judge of this court that even though part-time sweepers are not appointed on regular basis and they are not entitled to regularisation, they are entitled to get salary that is payable to regular hands and, therefore, this court directed to pay her salary and arrears from 25.11.1998 in parity with similar workers as per the Government Orders with reference to the area sweeped by them. Accordingly, the above judgment was marked as Ext.P10 in the present O.P. . Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to payment as that of the part-time contingent employees. She was not a mere casual worker employed on day today basis for casual work. According to the appellants, (respondents in the O.P.) now, the sweeping area is reduced to below 100 square metres and the remuneration is reduced. Petitioner W.A.2828/2007 2 approached this court. The basic document is Ext.P5. Clause 11 of Ext.P5 reads as follows: “11. The guidelines at Appendix shall also be applied to offices which already have part-time contingent sweepers. If, consequent to the re- fixation of the area in such offices in accordance with the guidelines, the sweeping area increases from below 400 mtrs. to above 400 mtrs., the part-time sweeper concerned shall be entitled to the higher remuneration of Rs.1500 plus D.A., but with effect from the date of the Government Order only. If the area reduces from above 400 mtrs. to below 400 mtrs., the remuneration of the particular part- time sweeper shall not be reduced from Rs.1500 plus D.A. The existing incumbent shall continue to get what he was getting. But the employee posted against the next vacancy should be given wage as per the rules. If, on fixation, the sweeping area reduces from above 100 sq.mtrs. To below 100 sq.mtrs., the remuneration of the existing part-time sweeper, if he is getting Rs.1250 p.m., plus D.A., shall not be reduced. He shall continue to get what he was getting. Here also, the next vacancy in the post should be filled up by a casual sweeper only, by paying Rs.600 per month.” In view of the above, part-time contingent sweepers' wages cannot be reduced in view of the reduction of sweeping area. It is also contended by the petitioner that actually there was no reduction in the sweeping area. Learned Government Pleader relied on a clause regarding the casual workers wherein they need be paid only W.A.2828/2007 3 depending upon the area covered for sweeping. Petitioner was not employed casually for sweeping work. Sweeping work is a regular work. She was working there for years together. Though she is not entitled legally for regularisation, she is not a mere casual employee and her pay cannot be reduced in view of Clause 11 of Ext.P5. Here, Ext. P10 judgment declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get pay of a regular contingent employee has become final and the above judgment was not appealed against. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that her remuneration of Rs.1500 + D.A. cannot be reduced. We agree with the above view. We are of the opinion that no grounds are made out for interference in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks