Dismissed

State of Kerala v. K.R.Mayadevi

Kerala HC12 Mar 2018OP(KAT)/103/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal from a Tribunal order, the State challenged regularization of a Part-time Sweeper's service. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the post was vacant and no other person claimed it (alleged substitute was a relative), regularization was justified.

What did the court decide?

The appeal (O.P.(KAT) No. 103 of 2018) was dismissed with no grounds for interference found.

State of Kerala Vs K.R.Mayadevi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1939

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 103 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1618/2014 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31-01-2017

¶9

PETITIONER(S)

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS (B)

¶12

DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001.

¶14

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC OFFICE,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 033.

¶16

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,

¶17

JUDICIAL BUILDING CIRCLE, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, KERALA-682 024.

¶18

BY ADV.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P N SANTHOSH

¶19

RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

K.R.MAYADEVI PART TIME SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, JUDICIAL BUILDING CIRCLE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,KERALA-682 024.

¶21

R BY SRI.D.JAYAN R BY SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR R BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)

¶22

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

kkj

¶24

OP(KAT).No. 103 of 2018

¶25

-2-

¶26

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE OA ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATED OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE OA
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT
EXT.P4: THE OA	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 IN OA 1618/2014
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES
EXT.P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN THE UNNUMBERED REVIEW APPLICATION
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.08.2017 IN UNNUMBERED RA NO... OF 2017 IN OA 1618/2014

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

¶33

O.P.(KAT) No. 103 of 2018

¶34

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2018

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶37

The State is in appeal against the order dated 31.01.2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT for short) Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.NO.1618 of 2014. The Original Application was filed by the respondent seeking regularization of her service as Part-time Sweeper in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Judicial Building Circle, Edappally, the third petitioner herein. According to her, she had been working as a Part time Sweeper from 31.11.2014. There is a sanctioned post of Part time Sweeper in the said office which was in existence from 30.01.1997. One Sri. Babu John was working as Part time Sweeper up to 30.11.2004. The respondent was posted in the vacancy that occurred when he was promoted as Fulltime Sweeper. She is a widow, having a son studying in Standard V. She is a person who belongs to the category,

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

O.P.(KAT) No. 103 of 2018

¶40

“Below Poverty Line”.

¶41

A proposal to regularise the respondent was forwarded by the third petitioner to the second petitioner, as per annexure A1. Annexure A1 shows that the respondent was working in the said post on a fixed remuneration of Rs.2,000/- per month from 01.12.2004. Her application was rejected by Annexure A5 holding that she had been working only during alternate months.

¶42

The contentions of the respondent were disputed by the petitioners. A reply statement was filed contending that apart from the respondent, one Sri.K.R. Sudarsan was also working as casual sweeper from 01.12.2004, intermittently. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the respondent was not a person who was having continuous service at the office. According to the respondent, Sri.K.R.Sudarsan was none other than her younger brother and that he had only been helping her out when she was sick.

¶43

-:3:-

¶44

O.P.(KAT) No. 103 of 2018

¶45

The KAT considered the respective contentions and placing reliance upon the observations of the Tribunal in an earlier case, Rajani P.K. v. State of Kerala [KAT Reporter - Volume 2 (2013) page 233] held that since no other person had staked a claim for regularisation other than the respondent, she was entitled to succeed. Thus the Original Application was allowed, placing reliance on the case put forward by the respondent that her name had been changed by the authorities in order to give an impression that her service was not continuous. It is aggrieved by the said order that this Original Petition is filed.

¶46

We have head the learned Government Pleader who appears for the petitioners. It is vehemently contended before us that the Tribunal seriously erred in directing regularisation of the services of the respondent in spite of the fact that there was nothing on record to evidence her continuous employment. However, we are not satisfied that, any interference with the order of the Tribunal is

¶47

-:4:-

¶48

O.P.(KAT) No. 103 of 2018

¶49

called for. This is in view of the fact that no person other than the respondent has come forward claiming regularization as Part time Sweeper in the sanctioned post that is in existence in the office of the third respondent. It is the common practice of the authorities to change the name of the Part time Sweeper in the records, even while continuously engaging the services of the same person, for the purpose of giving an impression that different persons had been working in the post. Such tactics are adopted by the authorities to safeguard themselves from any departmental action for employing the same person for a long time on casual basis. We find that the post of Part time Sweeper is in existence and that, the respondent is the only person who has staked a claim for regularisation in the said post. The sweeping area is also sufficient. The person whose name has been put forward as the other Part time Sweeper who had been working is none other than the younger brother of the respondent. It is the case of the

¶50

-:5:-

¶51

O.P.(KAT) No. 103 of 2018

¶52

respondent that, he had been only helping her out whenever she was sick. We find from a perusal of the impugned order that the Tribunal has considered the issue in the proper perspective. Therefore, we find no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶53

For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to admit this Original Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶56

Sd/- ANNIE JOHN JUDGE

¶57

kkj

State of Kerala v. K.R.Mayadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. K.R.Mayadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambili Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Y2NAGER,JAWAHAR High School,Ayur Vs the Manager,Thadikkad High School,Kollam

Manager, a.M.L.P.School, Valluvangad Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Sri.v.K.Balagopala Marar

Bindu K.L. Vs Ansamma Joseph