IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 9377 of 2007(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBHASHINI, D/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 51 YEARS, SUDHEESH BHAVAN, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., VAIKO M, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UDAYANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UDAYANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PADINJAREKKARA P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR MR.P.NANDAKUMAR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.12433/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9377/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 25/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF R1. P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.E2-7251/04 DATED 01/09/2004 ISSUED BY R2. P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.19163/2004 DATED 09/09/2004 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P4 : COPY OF ORDER - GO(P) NO.501/2005/FIN. DATED 25/11/2005. P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18/08/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18/08/2006 ADDRESSED TO R2. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18/08/2006 ADDRESSED TO R3. P8 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22/08/2006 IN WP(C) NO.22485/2006. P9 : COPY OF IA NO.1347/2007 IN WP(C) NO.22485/2006. P10 : COPY OF DECISION TAKEN BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 13/09/2006. P11 : COPY OF DECISION TAKEN BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 03/01/2007. P12 : COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 08/05/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/03/2007 PASSED BY R3. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) Nos.9377 (N) & 12433 (E) of 2007 -------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in these cases submits that she was engaged as a Part Time Sweeper under the respondent Panchayat. Her services were terminated with effect from 22/06/2004 and according to the Panchayat, another person was engaged from among those sponsored by the Employment Exchange, pursuant to the directions of this Court in WP(C) No.19163/2004. 2. In these writ petitions, the claim of the petitioner is for regularisation of her services on the basis of the Scheme formulated by the Government for regularisation of Part Time Sweepers vide GO (P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005, and in particular, clause 10 thereof. This claim of the petitioner has been rejected by Government Order dated 15/03/2007, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P6 in WP(C) No.12433/2007, on the ground that the petitioner was a daily waged employee, and that daily waged employees like the petitioner do not get the benefit of regularisation WP(C) Nos. 9377 & 12433/2007 -2- as contemplated in GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ext.P7 judgment dated 26/06/2009 in WP(C) No.2724/2006, produced in WP(C) No.12433/2007. Ext.P7 judgment was rendered based on the judgment in WP(C) Nos.19186/2005 & connected cases. It is sated that in Ext.P7 judgment, the claim of daily waged Part Time Sweepers for regularisation in terms of the Government Order referred to above has been upheld by this Court. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice Ext.P8, copy of GO(Rt.) No.1566/10/LSGD dated 10/05/2010 issued in pursuance to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment, and submits that services of the daily waged Part Time Sweepers have been regularised by the said Government Order. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P6 order rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularisation is unsustainable. 4. Prima facie, it would appear that the view taken by the Government in Ext.P6 order runs counter to Ext.P7 judgment and Ext.P8 Government Order. In that view of the matter, I feel that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be reconsidered. 5. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 1st WP(C) Nos. 9377 & 12433/2007 -3- respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of her service, in the light of the provisions contained in GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005 and Exts.P7 & P8 referred to above, and as also subsequent orders clarifying GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin. Orders in this behalf shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in WP(C) No.9377/2007 this Court had passed interim order on 20/03/2007 directing that in case the Panchayat needs to fill up the vacancy of Part Time Sweeper pending finalisation of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be provisionally engaged, the Panchayat did not engage the petitioner. In view of the above order, it is directed that until orders are passed by the Government as directed above, if the Panchayat needs to fill up the vacancy of Part Time Sweeper, the same shall be done by provisionally engaging the petitioner. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg