IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27481 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.C.SUMANGALA, W/O.MADHAVAN, PART TIME SWEEPER, PADINJARATHARA VILLAGE OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. BINDU.A.R, W/O.C.P.SHAJI, PART TIME SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTIL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. KAMALA KUMAR, W/O.KUMAR, PART TIME SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KAVUMANNAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. P.SOBHA, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PART TIME SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. SHALINI RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN, PART TIME SWEEPER, MUTTIL SOUTH VILLAGE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. VALSALA.K, W/O.SADASIVAN, PART TIME SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VELLARIMALA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 7. C.P.MUHAMMED, S/O.MOIDUNNI, PART TIME SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VENGAPPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 8. K.S.AYYAPPAN, S/O.SANKARAN, PART TIME SWEEPER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTATHARA. WAYANAD DISTRICT. 9. K.B.SURESHKUMAR, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PART TIME SWEEPER, THRIKAIPATTA VILLAGE OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE WP(C).No. 27481 of 2009 -2- RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GP ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).27481/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are casual part time sweepers attached to various Village Offices in Vythiri Taluk in Wayanad District. Certificates relating to the sweeping area in relation to the petitioners are produced as Ext.P1 series and they show that the sweeping area is in excess of 100 square meters. Petitioners had approached this Court earlier seeking a direction to the Government to regularise their services and also fix their wages on a par with that of part time sweepers in terms of G.O.(P).No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the Government to take a decision on their request. By Ext.P4, Government accepted the case only in respect of one person and did not accept in relation to the others. Hence the petitioners have come up with this writ petition. Ext.P5 shows that the reason for rejecting the petitioners' request is that the sweeping area has been assessed on the basis of Exts.P6 to Ext.P8 Circulars, which provide for guidelines at variance from the appendix to G.O.(P). 501/2005. Ext.P9 shows that the petitioners have been drawing W.P.(C).27481/09 2 wages at the rates which are mentioned therein on a par with that of part time sweepers. 2. The correctness of the determination of the sweeping area in accordance with the Circulars which have been issued subsequent to G.O.(P).501/2005 was considered by this Court in W.P.(C).19186/2005 and Connected Cases. It has been so held in paragraph 16 of the judgment. The appendix contains the guidelines of the determination of the sweeping area. Though there has been a suggestion that the appendix has not been logically laid down and that some of the areas to be swept have been excluded arbitrarily, I may straight away note, especially especially in the light of the decision of the Division Bench, that determination of the sweeping area is within the domain of the government. As to what will come within the sweeping area and what will be excluded there from are obviously not matters which should be decided by this Court. Nevertheless, I have also found on a perusal of the appendix that there is no artificial exclusion of any area, which forms an integral part of office premises, from the W.P.(C).27481/09 3 determination of the sweeping area to such an extent, where the application of the guidelines would result in an absurdity. What has been laid down are guidelines and obviously the impact of the same would be different in different factual situations. But the validity of the guidelines cannot be tested by reference to an aberration in a particular case. I should also take note of the fact that though the validity of the guidelines and appendix was challenged before this Court, the challenge was not accepted by this Court as evidenced from the decision reported in Pankajam v State of Kerala (2006(4) KLT short notes page 43). Thus, the determination of the sweeping area will have to be made as per the guidelines laid down in GO(P) 501/2005. This order has been issued by the government in exercise of its general executive power. I also make it clear that variation of the guidelines contained in the appendix can be done only by another order of a similar nature and character. I am constrained to make this observation because the learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to certain other circulars which are stated to have been issued subsequent to GO(P) 501/2005. Those circulars are not challenged in all these writ petitions as such. At any rate, I do not think W.P.(C).27481/09 4 it is necessary to consider the validity of such individual circulars. The sweeping area is to be determined as per the appendix to GO(P) 501/2005 and this will prevail as long as the said order prevails as such. Any circular issued either prior to or after G.O.(P)501/2005 will be subject to the Government Order. This is not to say that the government is bereft of the power to modify the guidelines. But it can be done only by orders passed by the government, and not by circulars or inter office communications. 3. I heard learned senior Government Pleader also. The sweeping area serviced by a part time sweeper is to be measured and determined in terms of the appendix to G.O.(P). 501/2005 which governs the field as such. Circulars which provide for a different method of determination of sweeping area cannot override the Government Order issued in this behalf. 4. In the result, Ext.P4 is set aside insofar as it does not accept the plea for regularization of services made by the petitioners herein. Ext.P10 is also consequently set aside. The Government shall pass fresh orders on the petitioners' plea for W.P.(C).27481/09 5 regularization of their services, after getting the sweeping area serviced by them determined in terms of the appendix to G.O. (P).501/2005. This shall be done within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, petitioners shall be paid the salary as mentioned in Ext.P9 till fresh orders are passed by the Government. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs