Partly allowed

P. Geethakumari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2010WP(C)/8960/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent authorities to pay arrears of pay revision within six weeks. It also ordered a fresh measurement of the sweeping area with notice to the petitioner; if over 100 sq.mtrs., regularization is proposed.

What did the court decide?

Payment of arrears of pay revision within 6 weeks and fresh measurement of sweeping area with notice; regularization if area exceeds 100 sq.mtrs.

P. Geethakumari 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

MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 8960 of 2010(T) -----------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

P.GEETHAKUMARI, W/O.S.JAYAKUMAR, PART TIME SWEEPER, KUMIL VILLAGE OFIFCE, KUMIL (PO), KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED TO THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶15

4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NANDAKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

W.P.(C) No.8960 of 2010

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶21

Dated this the 26^th day of July 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner is working as Part-time Sweeper in the Village Office, Kumil, Kollam District since 1989. In this writ petition, she has two grievances. One is that, she has not been regularized in pursuance of the provisions contained in Ext.P2 G.O.(P)No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 and the other is that though her claim for payment of wages as applicable to part time sweepers has been recognized, the benefit of 2004 pay revision has not been given so far.

¶24

In so far as the benefit of pay revision as claimed by the petitioner is concerned, in my view, there is no reason why the same should be denied to the petitioner particulary having regard to the direction of this Court

¶25

W.P.(C) No.8960 of 2010

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

contained in Ext.P1 judgment and in the light of paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 G.O. which position has now clarified by Ext.P8 G.O. as well. Therefore, the 4^th respondent shall takes steps for disposal of the arrears due to the petitioner on the aforesaid reasons. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

In so far as the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the basis of Ext.P2 G.O. is concerned, that will depend upon the measurement of the sweeping area in terms of provisions contained in the G.O. Although relying on Ext.P3, petitioner contended that the sweeping area is more than 100 sq.mtrs., on instructions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that subsequently sweeping area was measured and certificate was issued on 14.7.2006 to the effect that sweeping area is less than 100 sq.mtrs. In view of the case of the petitioner is that such measurement was without notice to the petitioner, necessarily

¶29

W.P.(C) No.8960 of 2010

¶30

measurement will have to be done afresh with notice to the petitioner. Therefore, it is directed that the 4^th respondent shall arrange to get the sweeping area of the office where the petitioner is engaged measured in terms of the provisions contained in the G.O. with notice to the petitioner. If the area is so measured is more than 100 sq.mtrs., a proposal for regularization in terms of the Ext.P2 G.O. shall be made. Such measurement shall be arranged as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶33

Jvt

P. Geethakumari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Geethakumari 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

Murali.K.Sreedhar Vs Lambodaran Nair

P. Ratheesan Vs United Electrical Industries

Arun P.v.Uthaman Vs State of Kerala

C.I.Ashokan Vs Dr.Sharmilla Mary Joseph

Tessy Mathai Vs Bini.N.S

Prof.Geevarughese John Vs Commr. & Prl.Secretary to Govt.