Allowed

T.C.Jaya v. the Homeo Medical Officer and Others

Kerala HC23 Jun 2010WP(C)/5949/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization as a part-time sweeper after rejection of her proposal. Court noted service details obtained via RTI indicated she worked in the relevant period despite government claims of non-continuous engagement. Court quashed the rejection order and directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Called into question and rejected the impugned order; directed the 4th respondent to reconsider the regularization proposal within 8 weeks; clarified that if no sweeper is engaged, the Medical Officer

T.C.Jaya Vs the Homeo Medical Officer and… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 5949 of 2010(P)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

T.C.JAYA,D/O.AMINI,PART-TIME SWEEPER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO DISPENSARY,MANJAPPETTI, MARAMPILLY.P.O,ALUVA-7.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.R.REJI, SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. THE HOMOEO MEDICAL OFFICER,GOVERNMENT HOMOEO DISPENSARY,MANJAPETTI,MARAMPILLY(PO), ALUVA-7.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMOEO), KALOOR,ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR,DIRECTORATE OF HOMOEOPATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED TO ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

W.P.(C). NO.5949/2010-P:

¶18

*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED:

¶19

5. K.S. SURESH, AGED 50, S/O. SURENDRAN, KIZHAKKUMCHERRY, NAYARAMBALAM.P.O., VYPIN, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 VIDE ORDER DTD. 15/03/10 IN I.A. 3740/10.

¶21

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU, R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI, SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY, SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.K.M.RAMYA.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C). NO.5949/2010-P:

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.501/2005/FIN. DT. 25/11/2005.

¶27

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE.

¶28

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CREATION OF POST OF PART-TIME CONTIGENT SWEEPER.

¶29

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 18/12/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.37817/2008.

¶30

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.2633/2009/H & FWD DT. 15/09/2009.

¶31

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.61/2010/FIN. DT. 09/02/2010.

¶32

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE VOUCHER OF PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2005.

¶33

EXT.P.7.A: COPY OF THE VOUCHER OF PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2005.

¶34

EXT.P.7.B: COPY OF THE VOUCHER OF PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2005.

¶35

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE VOUCHER OF PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2006.

¶36

EXT.P.8.A: COPY OF THE VOUCHER OF PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2006.

¶37

EXT.P.8.B: COPY OF THE VOUCHER OF PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2006. EXT.P.8.C: COPY OF THE VOUCHER OF PAYMENT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2006.

¶38

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.850/84/RD DT. 30/08/1984.

¶39

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/03/2009 IN W.P.(C).26160/2007.

¶40

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 16/08/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.5310/2007.

¶41

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 22/04/2010.

¶42

EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DTD. 17/05/2010.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶48

--------------------------------------------------

¶49

W.P.(C) NO.5949 OF 2010 (P)

¶50

--------------------------------------------------

¶51

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2010

¶52

J U D G M E N T

¶53

According to the petitioner from May, 2003 she was engaged as part time sweeper in the Government Homoeo Dispensary, Manjapetti, Ernakulam District. She claimed regularization on the basis of the provisions contained in GO(P). No.501/2005 Fin. dated 25.11.2005. Accordingly, Ext.P3 proposal for her regularization was made and which was directed to be considered in Ext.P4 judgment of this court in WP(c). No.37817/2008. The claim was considered by the Government and was rejected by Ext.P5 order, relevant part of which reads as under.

¶54

“In the case of the petitioner she was not appointed through Employment Exchange but engaged on daily wage basis during alternate months. Moreover her case has not been recommended by the Director of Homoeopathy in conformity with the guidelines contained in the Government Order read as Ist paper above.”

¶55

It is challenging Ext.P5 and seeking regularization that this writ petition is filed.

¶56

:2 :

¶57

WPC.No.5949 /2010

¶58

The contention raised by the petitioner is that her claim has been rejected mainly on the ground that her engagement was not continuous and that he was engaged on daily wages on alternative months. It stated that this conclusion as reiterated in Ext.P5 is erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this court Ext.P13, the details of service rendered by the petitioner, obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. According to the petitioner, the details thus obtained would prove that the conclusion in Ext.P5 is wrong.

¶59

In Ext.P13, the details of the work rendered by the petitioner from May, 2003 till February, 2009, are available. Although this indicates that during the aforesaid period, her sister Smt.T.C.Visalam and her mother Smt. Ammini also had worked, for a substantial part of the period, the petitioner herself had worked as part time sweeper. That apart, petitioner contends that going by the provisions contained in GO(P).No.501/2005 Fin. dated 25.11.2005 a Part Time Sweeper who was engaged during November, 2005 is entitled to be regularization and that the details in Ext.P13 shows that she was working as part time sweeper in November, 2005. On this basis learned counsel for the

¶60

WPC.No.5949 /2010

¶61

:3 :

¶62

petitioner submits that the conclusion in Ext.P5 is erroneous.

¶63

As already seen the main reason contained in Ext.P5 for rejection of the petitioner's request is that the engagement of the petitioner was not continuous. Ext.P13 information shows that for a substantial period from May, 2003 till February, 2009 it was the petitioner who was discharging the duties as part time sweeper. A reading of Ext.P5 itself shows that it was without reference to the particulars as disclosed in Ext.P13 that the Government took a decision to decline the proposal for regularization. In my view, Ext.P13 ought to have been considered by the Government while considering the proposal for the regularization of the services of the petitioner. Since Ext.P13 was not available before the Government when the petitioner's claim for regularization was rejected, it is a fit case which deserves reconsideration. For this reason, I quash Ext.P5 and direct the 4^th respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 proposal for regularization of the service of the petitioner. It is directed that the claim shall be considered in the light of the Ext.P1 and Ext.P6 Government Orders and Ext.P13 information referred to above. Orders in this behalf shall be passed as expeditiously as possible

¶64

WPC.No.5949 /2010

¶65

:4 :

¶66

and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of Ext.P13 referred to above.

¶67

According to the petitioner at present there is no part time sweeper engaged in the Homoeo Dispensary at Manjapetty. On this basis she seeks a direction that she shall be engaged until the matter is decided. Referring to Ext.P13, though the Government has contradicted the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that presently the Kudumbasree is engaged for sweeping work, in view of the petitioner's contention, it is clarified that if no such arrangement is made, it will be open to the Medical Officer concerned to make appropriate arrangements in the matter.

¶68

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶69

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶70

vi/

¶71

WPC.No.5949 /2010

¶72

:5 :

T.C.Jaya v. the Homeo Medical Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Jaya v. the Homeo Medical Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Others Vs Lt.Col.v.C.Poulose

Dr.N.Meenakumari and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Achamma Joseph Vs the Director,Urban Affairs & Another

M/S Mir Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.Abdul Nazar

P.Aboobacker Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

K.O.Subran Vs State of Kerala and Others