IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19499 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LALITHA.V.N., CASUAL SWEEPER IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, THRIPUNITHURA, RESIDING AT KAVILAMPILLY HOUSE, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.C.S.YESUDAS SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19499 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a casual sweeper in the office of the Commerical Taxes Officer, Second Circle, Mini Civil Station, Tripunithura. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to regularization in the light of the GO(P) No. 501/05/Fin dated 25/11/2005. According to the petitioner, based on the recommendation made by the 4th respondent, a proposal for creation of the post has been forwarded to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that due to delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in submitting the necessary proposal to the 2nd respondent, who in turn has to make it to the 1st respondent, she is denied the benefit of regularization. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, the 4th respondent has recommended her case for regularization in terms of the provisions contained in GO(P) No.501/05/Fin referred to above, necessarily, it is for the 3rd respondent to take further action in the matter. 3. Having regard to the complaint of the petitioner that WPC No. 19499/10 :2 : the 3rd respondent has not made any proposal to the 2nd respondent for submission to the 1st respondent for final orders in the matter, it is directed that the 3rd respondent shall take appropriate action in the matter in the light of the Government Order referred to above. This shall be done by the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month of production of a copy of this judgment, and thereafter it is for respondents 1 and 2 to pass final orders in the matter. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for appropriate orders. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp