Dismissed

Smt.Aliyamma v. Karakurussi Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC24 May 2016WP(C)/2144/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularisation and back wages as a part-time sweeper. Court denied relief noting respondent admitted petitioner's eligibility and stated regularisation proposal was already forwarded. Petitioner left to approach labour department for back wages.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue regarding back wages in the appropriate authority.

Smt.Aliyamma Vs Karakurussi Grama Panchayat — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2144 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SMT.ALIYAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KINARUKUTHIYIL VAZHAMPURAM P.O, PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, KARAKURUSSI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.VAZHAMPURAM, PALAKKAD DIST-678 598.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KARAKURUSSI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PO. VAZHAMPURAM, PALAKKAD DIST-678 598.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DIST-678 001.

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 605.

¶13

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶15

SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) R2-4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.K.SAIDALAVI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 2144 of 2011 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.501/2005 DT.25/11/2005

¶22

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES BOOK DT.25/6/99 OF PANCHAYAT

¶23

P3: TRUE COPYOF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PANCHAYAT DT.7/12/2001

¶24

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R1 DT.19/1/2001

¶25

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.61/2010 DT.6/2/10

¶26

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO R1 DT.30/12/10.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.2144 of 2011

¶34

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner who has been working as a Part Time Casual Sweeper in the first respondent Grama Panchayat filed this writ petition alleging that the first respondent is not taking any steps for regularisation in terms of the Government order- Ext.P1.

¶37

The first respondent Grama Panchayat has filed a counter

¶38

affidavit producing the decision taken by the Panchayat in its meeting held on 22.6.2010 for forwarding proposal for regularisation of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 Government order and entrusted the Secretary of the Panchayat to take appropriate action for the same. They have further produced Ext.R1(b) letter dated 29.6.2010 which shows that as per the same they have forwarded the proposal along with requisite documents to the Deputy Director of Panchayat. The first respondent has stated that the writ petition was filed at a time when steps were already taken for regularisation of the petitioner

¶39

as seen from Ext.R1(a) and Ext.R1(b). The first respondent has admitted that the petitioner had been working as a Part Time

¶40

W.P.(C) No.2144 of 2011

¶41

:2:

¶42

Sweeper with effect from 1.7.1999 and is eligible for regularisation in terms of Ext.P1 Government order. They have already obtained a requisite certificate from the Assistant Engineer and forwarded proposal for regularisation. This counter affidavit was filed on 25.8.2011. The petitioner's prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to recommend her for regularisation with back wages.

¶43

In view of the statement in the counter affidavit of the first respondent that action has already been taken for regularisation of the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.

¶44

It is made clear that the petitioner will be free to agitate the issue regarding back wages, in case she has got any grievance for the same.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶47

rkc

Smt.Aliyamma v. Karakurussi Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Aliyamma v. Karakurussi Grama Panchayat

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

Mary P.M. Vs State of Kerala

Sr. Sara Jane Vs the State of Kerala

P.S.Suimol Vs the State of Kerala

A.Sowbhagyavathy Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Malik Mohammed Vs State of Kerala and Others

The Manager, Sree Vidhyadhiraja Vidyalay Vs Govt.of Kerala and Others