Allowed

C.K.Usha v. State of Kerala and 3 Others

Kerala HC3 Aug 2010WP(C)/5145/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her non-regularisation as a part-time sweeper. The High Court directed the Panchayat to consider her case for regularisation under the Government Order and prepare requisite proposals. Additionally, the Court directed the disbursement of arrears of revised wages within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed 4th respondent to consider petitioner for regularisation, make proposal to 2nd respondent, and disburse arrears of revised wages within six weeks.

C.K.Usha Vs State of Kerala and 3 Others — 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

TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 5145 of 2009(K)

PETITIONER(S):

C.K. USHA, W/O. SUGATHAN, PART-TIME

¶10

SWEEPER, POTHANIKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, POTHANIKAD P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNKULAM DIST.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

SRI.R.REJI

RESPONDENT(S):

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KAKKANAD, E RNAKULAM,

¶18

POTHANIKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POTHANIKAD P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WPC NO.5145/2009

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

P1 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 11/05/1998 BY THE PANCHAYAT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/05/2002 ISSUED BY R3.

¶26

P3 : COPY OF LETTER NO.3923/H3/99/LAD DATED 13/05/1999 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT.

¶27

P4 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08/10/2003 IN WP(C) NO.28043/2003 BY THIS THIS COURT.

¶28

P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07/10/2003 IN WP(C) NO.28060/2003 BY THIS COURT.

¶29

P6 : COPY OF ORDER NO.C-132/04 DATED 04/09/2004 BY R4. P7 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23/11/2004 IN WP(C) NO.26697/04. P8 : COPY OF GO(MS) NO.501/2005/FIN. DATED 25/11/2005. P9 : COPY OF GO(P) NO.152/75/PD DATED 02/08/1975.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.5145 of 2009 (K)

¶35

Dated, this the 3^rd day of August, 2010

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

According to the petitioner, since 12/05/1998, she has been working as a Part Time Sweeper under the 4^th respondent Panchayat.

¶38

It is stated that she is entitled to regularisation in terms of the provisions contained in GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25/11/2005. According to the petitioner, the sweeping area has been measured

¶39

as 425 sq.m., and therefore, she is entitled to be regularised in service.

¶40

GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin referred to above provides for regularisation, in cases where proposals are made by the concerned authorities. In this case, the petitioner claims to be a Part Time Sweeper under the 4^th respondent, and therefore, it is for the 4^th respondent to get the Sweeping Area Certificate as contemplated in the Government Order referred to above and make a proposal to the 2^nd respondent, who in turn has to seek orders of regularisation of the 1^st respondent.

¶41

WP(C) No.5145/2009

¶42

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the

¶43

4^th respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the Government order referred to above and make necessary proposal to the 2^nd respondent, who in turn shall place it before the 1^st respondent for orders.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that arrears of revised wages pursuant to pay revision orders are yet to be disbursed. Taking into account the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, it is directed that the 4^th respondent will disburse arrears of revised wages, if any, due to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶47

C.K.Usha v. State of Kerala and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Usha v. State of Kerala and 3 Others

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

The Kerala State Housing Board and Anr. Vs v.a.Mohammed Sali and Anr.

The Principal Secretary, Finance(Esst-B) Vs K.I.Hashim & Another

Rethy O. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala & Others Vs a.K.Prakasan & Others

E.P.Radha Vs State of Kerala

Thrideep Kumar M.P Vs the Chairman, K.S.P.C.B