Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Latha.P.C

Kerala HC6 Dec 2019OP(KAT)/235/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioners reviewing the Administrative Tribunal's order regularising a sweeper. It held that the entitlement was determined based on the sweeping area as on the date of the relevant Government order (2005), before the office shift reduced the area in 2010.

What did the court decide?

The original petition filed by the State officers is dismissed for lack of ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

State of Kerala Vs Latha.P.C — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.235 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 3036/2013 DATED 24-11-2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA, 695 001

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURAL VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 KERALA.

¶12

3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRISSUR THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001 KERALA

¶13

4 THE ASSISTNAT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE CHERPU, PALAKKADL P.O., PALISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 561, KERALA.

¶14

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN CHERUP MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERUP P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 561, KERALA.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

LATHA.P.C W/O. SURESH, PART-TIME, SWEEPER KRISHI BHAVAN CHERUP MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERUP P.O., THRISUSR DISTRICT RESIDING AT VELIYATH HOUSE, GANDHIGRAM IRINJALAKUDS THRISSUR 680 121, KERALA,

¶18

OP(KAT).235/19

¶19

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.THARA THAMBAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.BIPIN R1 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶23

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

OP(KAT).235/19

¶25

¶26

K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.

¶27

O.P(KAT).No.235 of 2019

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2019

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Arun, J.

¶31

The State of Kerala and its officers are aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, directing regularisation of the respondent/original applicant as Part-time Sweeper at the Krishi Bhavan, Cherpu with effect from 18.6.2001. The brief facts, as narrated in the original application, are as follows;

¶32

The applicant was engaged as a Part-time Sweeper with effect from 23.4.2000, for sweeping two Government offices functioning in the same building, namely, the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Cherpu and the Krishi Bhavan, Cherpu. In terms of Annexure A4 Government order dated 25.11.2005, prescribing the modalities for sanctioning of post and regularisation of Part-time Sweepers in Government offices, proposals were forwarded to the Government for sanctioning the post of Part-time Sweeper and for regularising the applicant. As

¶33

OP(KAT).235/19

¶34

¶35

per the sweeping area certificates issued by the competent authority, the sweeping area of Krishi Bhavan, Cherpu was 81.17 sq.mtr. and that of the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture was 81.40 sq.mtr. The total sweeping area being was 162.56 sq.mtr.

¶36

Pending the request for regularisation of the applicant, the Krishi Bhavan, Cherpu shifted from the existing premises to the Mini Civil Station, Cherpu on 30.10.2010. As a result, the sweeping area of that office got reduced to less than 100 sq.mtr. Thereafter, by Annexure A8 order dated 4.8.2012, the Government rejected the request for creation of the post of Parttime Sweeper at Krishi Bhavan, Cherpu and for regularisation of the applicant for the reason that the sweeping area of the office was below 100 sq.mtr. The applicant challenged Annexure A8 before the Tribunal and prayed for a declaration that she is entitled to be regularised as Part-time Sweeper with effect from 18.6.2001, with consequential benefits.

¶37

The singular contention urged by the respondents before the Tribunal was that Annexure A4 Government order does not envisage consideration of the sweeping area of two offices for the purpose of sanction and regularisation. The Tribunal held that the

¶38

OP(KAT).235/19 5

¶39

object of Annexure A4 scheme being to regularise casual sweepers in service as on 25.11.2005, that cannot be defeated on the specious ground that, the shifting of one of the offices had resulted in reduction of the sweeping area got reduced to less than 100 Sq. Mtr.

¶40

In this original petition the only question arising for consideration is whether, the reduction of sweeping area after 25.11.2005, due to shifting of one of the offices, would deprive the applicant of her right to be regularised. The answer to this question is available from Annexure A4 Government order itself. In Paragraph 8 of the Government order it is stipulated that for regularisation of the existing casual sweepers (where the sweeping area exceeds 100 sq. mtr.), creation of posts of parttime contingent employees, depending on the sweeping area, has to be made. It is further stated that if on fixation, the sweeping area is seen to exceed 100 sq. mtr. and if there is no post of Part-time Sweeper sanctioned for the office in question, but there is a casual sweeper engaged, the head of the office shall immediately take up the matter with the Government for creation of a post of part-time contingent sweeper.

¶41

OP(KAT).235/19

¶42

¶43

There is no dispute to the fact that as on 25.11.2005, the applicant was continuing as a casual sweeper and the total sweeping area was more than 100 sq. mtr. Therefore, in terms of Annexure A4, a post of Part-time Sweeper ought to have been sanctioned and the applicant regularised in that post. The sanction of post and regularisation is with reference to the position as on 25.11.2005 and no subsequent event can alter the position. The original application having been allowed by the Tribunal based on the same reasoning, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶44

In the result, the original petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

¶45

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶46

Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

vgs x

OP(KAT).235/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1[A1]	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER CBK-14/04 DATED 20/10/2004.
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OA ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P2 .	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN.
EXHIBIT P1[A1(A)]	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A1.
EXHIBIT P3 .	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN WITH ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT P1[A2]	TRUE COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE NO.A3.9756/56/04 DATED 29/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING DIVISION, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P3 (A9)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 04/11/2014 IN T.A. 2573/2012 IN WPC 6556/2007.
EXHIBIT P4 .	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2016 IN OA NO.3036/2013.
EXHIBIT P1[A3]	TRUE COPY OF THE SWEEPING ARE CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 14/02/2006.
EXHIBIT P1[A4]	TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.501/2005/FIN DATED 25/11/2005.
EXHIBIT P1[A5]	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR REGULARIZATION OF THE APPLICANT DATED 02/12/2005 FORWARDED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1[A6]	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.E(2)8678/05 DATED 24/03/2006.
EXHIBIT P1[A6(A)]	TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A6.
EXHIBIT P1[A7]	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.31009/AF3/092AD DATED 10/04/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1[A8]	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.31009/AF3/2009/AD DATED 04/08/2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

State of Kerala v. Latha.P.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Latha.P.C

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

Union of India Vs B.Sudheer Kumar

B.Sudheer Kumar Vs the General Manager

V.S.Sreeja, Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs Jain George

Joseph Febin Vs State of Kerala

Priyanka v.K., Vs Lisha M.D.