IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 16031 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SREEDEVI M.T., D/O. M. GOPALAN NAIR (LATE), MELATHU VEEDU, MANADUKKAM P.O., CHENGALA VIA., KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMEO, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HOMEO MEDICAL SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMEO), KASARGOD. 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEO DISPENSARY, MANADUKKA, KASARGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16031 of 2008 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the judgment dated 28.3.2007 in W.P.(C)No.10799/2007. Ext.P2 :- Copy of G.O.(Rt)No.4067/2007 H & FWD dated 2.12.2007. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the order dated 6.7.2007. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the letter dated 9.2.2008. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the order dated 22.1.2007. Ext.P6 :- Copies of the orders dated 20.12.2003, 22.3.2004, 25.6.2004, 26.8.2004, 27.10.2004, 28.12.2004 and 1.3.2005. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16031 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Part Time Sweeper in the Manadukkam Government Homeo Dispensary in Kasargod District. Going by the pleadings, she was so engaged for the period from 13.3.2003 to 27.8.2005. She claimed regularization on the strength of G.O. (P)No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005, that is now rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 2.12.2007. Reason stated in Ext.P2 is that the sweeping area was got measured and was found to be 96.49 sq.mts. 2. Admittedly, G.O.(P)No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005 provides for regularization only in those cases where the sweeping area is more than 100 sq.mts. If so, the finding that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization as per the provisions contained in the Government Order referred above for the reason that the minimum sweeping area prescribed in the Government Order is not satisfied, cannot be attacked in this case. W.P.(C) No.16031 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. However, a reading of Clause 9 of the Government Order states that if, on refixation of the sweeping area, it is found to be less than 100 sq.mts. and if there is a casual sweeper already working, he shall continue without disruption with monetary benefits, the claim for retention should not be allowed. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged only till 27.8.2005. If so, she cannot claim to be a casual sweeper in service on the date of the Government Order to claim continued engagement on the basis of Clause 9. 4. In this case, the sweeping area was got measured and before the implementation of the G.O.(P)No.501/2005 dated 25.11.2005, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with as early as on 25.11.2005. For these two reasons, the claim for retention also is not sustainable. Therefore the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt