Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Santha K

Kerala HC17 Dec 2018RP/816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Kerala HC dismissed a review petition challenging a regularisation order for a part-time sweeper. The Court held that technical objections regarding maintainability do not warrant a review. It affirmed that post-sanction dates do not limit effect of regularisation orders and that subsequent executive orders cannot override prior judicial findings.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition RP.No. 816 of 2018 dismissed; earlier judgment/split orders affirmed.

State of Kerala Vs Santha K — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 RP.No. 816 of 2018 IN WP(C). 2730/2017

¶5

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):

¶6

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶7

2 DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

3 CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER I.B.COMPLEX, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, THALASSERY - 670 101.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

¶11

SANTHA K

¶12

KANDAN KODAN HOUSE, CHIRAKKARA P.O, THALASSERY, P.T SWEEPER,

¶13

OFFICE OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, I.B COMPLEX, THALASSERY - 670101

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2018, , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RP.No. 816 of 2018

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This Review Petition is filed on two

¶19

grounds. First is the post of Part Time Sweeper, which is being occupied by petitioner in an ICDS Project Office, which is under the Department of Social Justice under the State of Kerala and hence

¶20

this matter was not liable to be entertained by this Court. Secondly, it is pointed out that Social Justice Department had issued Annexure-A order on 01.07.2008, according to which the regularisation of Part Time Sweepers are ordered with effect from the date of the said order i.e., the date on which the posts are created as per the

¶21

Annexure. Annexure A order is seen issued referring to G.O.(P) No.501/05/FN dated 25.11.2005 and another order G.O.(Ms).No.79/07/SWD dated 12.11.2007.

¶22

2. It is not disputed that as per G.O.P.No.501/05/FN dated 25.11.2005, regularisation is provided for Part Time Sweeper with effect from the date of appointment or from 18.06.2001, the

¶23

RP.No. 816 of 2018

¶24

¶25

date of judgment of a series of writ petitions in which regularisation of Part Time Sweeper was directed.

¶26

3. Moreover, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, points out that in Annexure-A order, posts have been sanctioned with effect from 18.06.2001 and on various dates thereafter. The Government order on regularisation of Part Time Sweepers was issued only in 2005. The persons included in Annexure-A order are seen regularised with effect from 18.06.2001.

¶27

4. The contention of the respondent that regularisation is permissible only with effect from the date on which the posts were sanctioned cannot be correct, as can be seen from the order AnnexureA itself.

¶28

5. Yet another order relied on by the Review Petitioner is Annexure B order issued on 10.04.2018 by the Finance Department, according to which, regularisation shall be effective only from the

¶29

RP.No. 816 of 2018

¶30

¶31

date on which, orders are passed regularising the Part Time Sweepers. However the judgment, in the case of the petitioner, (sought to be reviewed) was on 16.01.2018 and Annexure B order was issued 3 months after that. Therefore Annexure B order can in no way be applicable in the case of petitioner. Annexure B order cannot have any overriding effect.

¶32

6. Regarding the contention raised as against maintainability, the post is only Part Time post. Moreover the respondents did not raise such an objection at the time when the writ petitioner was heard. Petitioner is only a Part Time Sweeper. Such technical objections are not liable to be

¶33

taken in such cases.

¶34

Therefore I do not find any reason to review the judgment.

¶35

This Review Petition is therefore

¶36

dismissed.

¶37

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶38

¶39

RP.No. 816 of 2018

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 01/07/2008. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10/04/2018.

State of Kerala v. Santha K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Santha K

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

P.G.Joseph Vs Sri.P.G.Unnikrishnan, Secretary, Kerala State Electiricity Board

P.G.Joseph Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Assanar K.M Vs the Palakkad District Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society Ltd.

V.Raman Nair Vs the Aluva Municipality

Ashalatha S., Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Dr.Dayamon D Mathew Vs Kerala Veterinary & Animal Sciences