Dismissed

K.M.Mariyam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Oct 2010WP(C)/16017/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former casual part-time sweeper seeking reinstatement or regularisation. The court held that posts were not mandatory where sweeping area was under 100 sq.m. and regularisation is not applicable to terminated employees without existing posts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking reinstatement and regularisation of the petitioner's service is dismissed.

K.M.Mariyam Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 16017 of 2007(F) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

K.M. MARIYAM, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. IMBICHI MOIDY, KANJIRAMULLATHIL HOUSE, ULLERI P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (FARMS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SEED DEVELOPMENT, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, ULLERI, VIA. KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE.

¶16

AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SEED DEVELOPMENT, ULLERI, VIA. KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU.T.K.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C).No. 16017/2007

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.8.03 BY R5. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.9.11.2004 BY R3. P3. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.25.11.2005. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 34477/06 OF THIS COURT. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.12.4.07 BY R1. sdk+

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No.16017 of 2007

¶27

==================

¶28

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2010

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner's service as a casual part time sweeper in the office of the 5^th respondent was terminated by order dated 29.8.2003. Eversince then, she has been making representations for reinstatement. Subsequently, based on a judgment of this Court, Government issued Ext.P3 guidelines regarding regularisation of casual sweepers in Government office. The petitioner filed W.P.(C).No. 34477/2006, in which, by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed the Government to consider the representation of the petitioner. By Ext.P5, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no sanctioned post of part time sweeper at the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Ulliyeri, where the petitioner was working.

¶31

The petitioner raises several contentions. First is that as far as Ext.P3 Government order is concerned, the Government was duty bound to create posts of part time contingent sweepers and, therefore, a post should have been created in the office of the 5^th respondent also. She further contends that she was working in the office of the 6^th respondent also and, therefore, the order is wrong. Thirdly, the petitioner submits that by virtue of the Govt. Order, G.O(P) No.61/10/Fin. dated 9.2.2010, the petitioner is eligible to be

¶32

¶33

w.p.c.16017/07

¶34

regularised in service.

¶35

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit

¶36

controverting the contentions of the petitioner.

¶37

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶38

As per Ext.P3, Government is obliged to create a post of

¶39

part time continent sweeper only if the sweeping area in an office is more than 100 sq.m. The petitioner has not produced any material in this writ petition to show that the sweeping area of the 5^th respondent's office is more than 100 sq.m.. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that there was in fact a post of part time contingent sweeper in the 5^th respondent's office, in which, the petitioner can be accommodated. The contention of the petitioner that she was working in the 6^th respondent's office also cannot be countenanced in the absence of any material in support of the same. In the absence of any specific orders, a Government servant cannot work in two offices at the same time. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in Ext.P5 order of the Government.

¶40

Regularisation in service can be only in an existing post. The petitioner could not prove that there is an existing post, in which, her services can be regularised. Even otherwise, the regularisation can be applicable only to an existing employee. Admittedly, the petitioner's services were terminated as early as in 2003. As such, there cannot be

¶41

¶42

w.p.c.16017/07

¶43

any question of regularisation of the petitioner in service.

¶44

For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ

¶45

petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶46

sdk+

¶47

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶48

///True copy///

¶49

P.A. to Judge

K.M.Mariyam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Mariyam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Babu Vs T.Baburaj

Sajay Joseph Vs Sri. R.S.Gujral, IAS

Superintending Engineer, Kochi Vs P.Krishnamoorthy

U.K.Bhasi Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

V.R.Vanaja Vs State of Kerala

M.C.Satheesan Vs the Circle Inspector of Police