IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22301 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PADMINI, D/O CHEERU, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANAKOYEMMAL HOUSE, P.O.NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PARTTIME SWEEPER, VETERINARY DISPENSARY IYANKODE NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. K.K.REENA, D/O NANU, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT UTHIRUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PART TIME SWEEPER VETERINARY DISPENSARY AYANIKKADU P.O. IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, 'VIKAS BHAVAN', THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU SMT.ANITHA RAMAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2.2.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 22301/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.25.11.05. P2. COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE DTD.18.5.06. P3. COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE IYYAMKODE DISPANSARY. P4. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE REGARDING JOINING DUTY OF P1. P5. COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER BY FIRST PETITIONER'S MOTHER. P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.3.7.07. P7. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.3.7.07. P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.3.7.07. P9. COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE. P10. COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE AYINIKKAD VETERINARY DISPENSARY P11. COPY OF THE CERTIFIED DTD.22.6.07. P12. COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DTD.29.6.07 BY SECOND PETITIONER'S FATHER. P13. COPY OF THE PETITION BY P2 BEFORE R3. P14. COPY OF THE PETITION BY P2 BEFORE R1 DTD.29.6.07. P15. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.29.6.07. P16. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.8.06 OF R3. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22301 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are casual sweepers working at Iyankode and Ayinikkadu Veterinary dispensaries under the 3rd respondent. According to them, they have been working so continuously for the past four years. Therefore, they claim that they are entitled to the benefit of regularization as per Ext.P1 Government order dated 25.11.2005, which itself was based on judgments of this Court. The petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining that their claim for regularisation of their service in accordance with Ext.P1 Government order was not favourably considered and seeking the following reliefs; “1. To issue a writ of Mandamus other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to create posts of part time sweepers in the respective offices where the petitioners are engaged as casual sweepers at present. 2. To direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners by appointing them to the posts of the par (sic) time sweepers created a new as prayed for above. 3. To direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioners consequent to the regularisation of their service in accordance with Exhibit P1 government order. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent taking the contention that the benefit of Ext.P1 Government order is available only to those casual sweepers who were working continuously in the institution at a remunerations of ` 600/- per month and the same may not be available to petitioners since the petitioners 2 were not engaged continuously and persons other than the petitioners were also engaged for sweeping work in different spells. According to them, in Ayinikkad Veterinary Dispensary, K.K.Nanu and Smt.A.T.Lekha were also engaged as sweepers for different spells in addition to the 2nd petitioner. In Iyankode Veterinary Dispensary, one Smt.Cheeru was also engaged in addition to the 1st petitioner as casual sweeper intermittently every 15 days. Therefore, according to them, the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that Smt.Cheeru is the 1st petitioner's mother and K.K.Nanu is the 2nd petitioner's father. The counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no other claimants for regularisation. It is further submitted that Smt.A.T.Lekha is a relative of the 2nd petitioner and she also has not made any claim for regularization. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Going by Ext.P1, there is no stipulation that the casual sweepers claiming regularization should be one who was being paid ` 600/- per month. All what Ext.P1 says is that after creation of the post, the existing casual sweepers shall be absorbed by giving a remuneration of ` 1250/- plus D.A. per month. The respondents in 3 their counter affidavit categorically stated that there are sanctioned post of sweepers in both dispensaries. Therefore, the only question to be decided is as to who is entitled to be absorbed as regular part time sweeper in the two dispensaries. As I have already stated, as per Ext.P1, the existing casual sweeper is entitled to be absorbed. The respondents themselves have given the details of engagement of the petitioners. Going by the same, although intermittently, the petitioners were being engaged from April 2003 and December, 2002 onwards, respectively and they were the existing casual sweepers at the time of Ext.P1 order and even now. The respondents have no case that anybodyelse has come forward claiming such regularization. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioners are the existing sweepers as contemplated under Ext.P1 Government order and, therefore, are entitled to be absorbed as regular part time sweepers in the vacancies admittedly existing. Accordingly, I allow this writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders regularising the services of the petitioners in the regular post available in the respective dispensaries and give them all benefits to which they are eligible under Ext.P1. Arrears of monetary benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that arrears will be payable only for the period they actually worked. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge