IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 443 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- M. SARADA, PART TIME SWEEEPER, VORKADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VORKADY P.O., MANJESHWAR. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RURAL), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KASARAGOD. 4. VORKADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VORKADY P.O., MANJESHWAR, PIN-681 323. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 443 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Casual Sweeper working in the 4th respondent Panchayat. By Exhibit P1 resolution, the Panchayat resolved to request the Government to accord permission to appoint the petitioner to one of the posts of Part Time Sweepers. According to the petitioner, she has been working since 1995. By Exhibit P8 communication, the Deputy Director of Panchayats intimated the 4th respondent that it is open to the 4th respondent to take steps to appoint the petitioner on regular basis as part time Sweeper. When this has not been implemented, petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No.9132 of 2007, which was disposed of by Exhibit P9 judgment, directing the 4th respondent to take steps in accordance with Exhibit P8, within a time frame. Pursuant thereto, by Exhibit P10, the Panchayat decided to complete formalities to regularly appoint the petitioner as Part time contingent employee. This has been found to be irregular by the Deputy Director of Panchayats in Exhibit P13 and the Panchayat has been directed to submit an explanation thereto. Pursuant thereto, the Panchayat proceeded to cancel Exhibit P10 under Exhibit P14. It is aggrieved by Exhibit P14 that the petitioner has approached this Court. W.P ( C) No. 443 of 2008 2 2. In my view, the petitioner should approach the Government against Exhibit P13 proceedings of the Director, especially in view of the fact that the Government has laid down the guidelines regulating the absorption of casual sweepers, in G.O (P) 501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005. Apparently, the method outlined in G.O (P) 501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005 could be adopted in the case of Panchayat Casual Sweepers also, going by the version given by the Director in Exhibit P13. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Government against Exhibit P13. If the petitioner files a representation, within four weeks from today before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and take a decision, within three months thereafter. Status quo as regards the petitioner’s service prevailing as on date shall be maintained till the Government takes a decision in the manner aforementioned. Government shall hear the 4th respondent also, before a decision is taken in this regard. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 443 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No. 443 of 2008 2 25th May, 2007