Allowed

Bindu Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jun 2010WP(C)/2629/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the first respondent's rejection of the petitioner's regularization claim. Noting that a subsequent Government Order clarified that daily wage part-time sweepers are eligible for regularization, the court directed the respondent to pass fresh orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the rejection order; directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders considering G.O.(P) No.61/2010/Fin within eight weeks.

Bindu Krishnankutty 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 ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 2629 of 2008(K)

PETITIONER(S):

BINDU KRISHNANKUTTY, W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, (PART TIME SWEEPER KUDAYATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THODUPUZHA) KAVUMKAL HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA.

¶16

KUDAYATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW FOR R4

¶18

MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) No. 2629/2008

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST.ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING SECTION, KARIMANOOR.

¶24

P2 : COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.501/2005/FIN. DATED 25/11/2005.

¶25

P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.29229/2004 DATED 09/06/2006

¶26

P4 : COPY OF ORDER G.O.(Rt.) NO.3289/07/LSGD DATED 01/12/2007.

¶27

P5 : COPY OF LETTER NO.6438/H2/06/LSGD DATED 08/05/2006.

¶28

P6 : COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.22817/2007 DATED 25/07/2007.

¶29

P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26/06/2009 IN WP(C) NO.22817/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES.

¶30

P8 : COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT.) NO.1566/10/LSGD DATED 10/05/2010.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.2629 of 2008 (K)

¶36

Dated, this the 18^th day of June, 2010

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner is working as a Part Time Sweeper. She claimed regularization in the light of the provisions contained in GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25/11/2005. Earlier, when the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) No.29229/2004, this Court in Ext.P3 judgment directed the respondents therein to consider the matter. Accordingly, the 1^st respondent therein considered her claim and passed Ext.P4 order dated 01/12/2007 rejecting the request. It is challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition has been filed. Reason stated in Ext.P4 is as follows:-

¶39

“Government have examined the case in details with the report of the Director of Panchayats, Thiruvananthapuram read as second paper above. There is no provision in G.O.(P) 501/05/Fin. dated 25/11/05, to regularise the service of Part-time Sweepers working on daily wages. Therefore, the service of Smt.Bindu Krishnankutty who is working as Part-time Sweeper on daily wages in Kudayathoor Grama Panchayat cannot be regularised. Hence the request of Smt.Bindu Krishnankutty in the representations read as 3^rd paper above for regularisation of her service is rejected and the Court direction in WP(C) 29229/04 is complied with accordingly.”

¶40

A perusal of the above shows that it was finally on the

¶41

-2-

¶42

WP(C) No.2629/2008

¶43

ground that the petitioner was working as a Part Time Sweeper on daily wages that her claim was rejected.

¶44

The learned counsel has produced before me a copy of GO(P) No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09/02/2010, where the Government have clarified that Part Time Sweepers engaged even on daily wages,

¶45

will also be entitled to the benefit of regularization as per GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005. Therefore, in the light of the Government Order dated 09/02/2010, objection against the regularization of the petitioner as contained in Ext.P4 no longer survives.

¶46

Therefore, Ext.P4 has to be quashed and I do so. The 1^st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter in the light

¶47

of the above and also taking into account the provisions of GO(P). No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09/02/2010. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition will remain in force.

¶48

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶49

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶51

Bindu Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu Krishnankutty 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasna & Others Vs the General Manager, National Highway Au

S.Vijayakumaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Thomas P.C. Vs the Conservator of Forests

P.Hamza and Another Vs Jolly Varghese

J.Raveendran Vs S.Sasidharan

C.Muraleedharan Vs the State of Kerala