IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9338 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K. DEVAKI, PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT), KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTAPPANA. 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT), KATTAPPANA. R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9338/2009-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/12/2003 IN WP(C) NO. 38793/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/08/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).501/2005 DATED 25/11/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/10/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 27264/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.505/2009 DATED 6/02/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 9338 of 2009 J =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a Casual Sweeper working in the office of the sixth respondent. The sweeping area of the six respondent’s office is admittedly more than 100 Sq.mtrs. The petitioner claims regularization in service relying on Ext.P3 Government order dated 25-11-2005. 3. When her request for regularization was kept pending, the petitioner along with another person working in the fifth respondent’s office filed W.P.(C) No.27264 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 6-10-2008 this Court directed the Government to consider their request for regularization. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Government considered their claim for regularization. The claim of the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27264 of 2008 was upheld and the Government ordered regularization of her service. As regards the petitioner herein who was the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27264 of 2008, the Government W.P.(C) No. 9338/09 2 held that as the sixth respondent’s office is not a permanent one, but a special unit created for special purpose, the petitioner’s service cannot be regularized. Ext.P5 to the extent it denies regularization to the petitioner herein is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. A reading of Ext.P5 indicates that petitioner is denied regularization on the short ground that office of the fifth respondent is not a permanent establishment, but a special unit created for a special purpose . The respondents have no case that sweeping area of the sixth respondent's office is below 100 Sq. mtrs.. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in W.P.(C) No. 10774 of 2008 held that G.O.(P) No.501/05/Fin. dated 25-11- 2005 does not make a distinction amongst Government Offices as such, with reference to question whether they are a permanent government office or a temporary one. It was also held that the mere fact that the office is a temporary office, does not lead to the inference that the staff working in such office are temporary staff. In the light of the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 10774 of 2008, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P5 Government order cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P5 Government Order to the extent it denies the petitioner, regularization in service is quashed W.P.(C) No. 9338/09 3 and the Government are directed to pass orders regularizing the service of the petitioner in the office of the sixth respondent in accordance with the stipulations in G.O.(P) No. 501/2005/Fin dated 25-12-2005. Final orders in this regard shall be passed within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment along with copy of this writ petition before the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.