Disposed

Sunitha Kumari C. S., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/19607/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to implement government orders for facility provision to an empanelled agency and prohibiting eviction. The Court held that since the agency's tenure expired, the petitioner cannot insist on continuation of services but is at liberty to approach authorities for enrolment through the Kudumbashree unit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for enrolment in Haritha Karma Sena through the Kudumbashree Unit.

Sunitha Kumari C. S., Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19607 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNITHA KUMARI C. S., AGED 36 YEARS W/O. VENKITESAN, CHENIYATHARA, BEEMAPPALLI WARD, VALLAKADAVU P.O., PIN-695008.

¶8

BY ADV V.HARISH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶13

4 HEALTH INSPECTOR, MANACADU DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM-695009.

¶14

BY ADVS. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SHRI . P . K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

WP(C) NO.19607 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO.19607 OF 2022

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2022

¶21

The petitioner is a service provider empanelled by the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and is now working as part of

¶22

the Haritha Karma Sena of the 2^nd respondentThiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs.

¶23

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to implement Exhibits P1 and P2 in its full letter and spirit;

¶24

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Exhibit P7 representation and pass final orders in the light of Exhibits P1 and P2, within a period of 1 month;

¶25

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents not to evict the petitioner from any of the ongoing duties, without following the due process of law;

¶26

(iv) Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

¶27

WP(C) NO.19607 OF 2022 4

¶28

The petitioner would state that Exts.P1 and P2 orders

¶29

govern the running of Haritha Karma Sena. The 2^nd respondent has recognized the petitioner’s unit as an agency for waste management in 4 Wards in Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and has permitted the petitioner to handle inorganic waste at the backyard of Manacadu Health Circle Office. The grievance of the petitioner is that the facilities to be provided to such agencies and Kudumbashree units for carrying out the activities under Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders, are not

¶30

provided. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P7 representation before the Secretary to Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The petitioner would submit that even keeping the agency apart, the petitioner is a member of the Kudumbashree unit. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner is liable to be considered, contends the petitioner.

¶31

Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and resisted the writ petition. The

¶32

WP(C) NO.19607 OF 2022

¶33

respondent-Corporation pointed out that the period of the petitioner’s agency stood expired on 30.10.2022. Therefore, the petitioner as an agency selected under Ext.P1, cannot insist that the petitioner has a subsisting grievance and such grievance should be considered.

¶34

Standing Counsel further submitted that the Corporation is bound by Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders. The Corporation will be implementing the provisions of Exts.P1 and P2 stage by stage.

¶35

Standing Counsel further submitted that subsequent to Ext.P2 Government Order, the Haritha Karma Senas in all 100 wards are now linked to Kudumbashree units. The Corporation does not intent to engage any agency for the discharge of functions, at this point of time. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner not to evict the petitioner from any of the ongoing duties without following due course of law, cannot be accepted.

¶36

WP(C) NO.19607 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4.

¶39

The petitioner represents an agency selected under Ext.P1 Government Order for discharging the functions of Haritha Karma Sena. The petitioner states that such agencies are not provided with the facilities contemplated under Ext.P2 Government Order. The non-supply of inoculum at the right time was frequently reported by the petitioner to officials. However, no fruitful result yielded. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the tenure of the petitioner’s agency has expired on 30.10.2022.

¶40

Standing Counsel would categorically submit that the Corporation does not intent to further engage any agencies for Haritha Karma Sena work, for the time being and Haritha Karma Senas of all the 100 Wards of the Corporation, have been linked to Kudumbashree units. In that view of the matter, this Court is of

¶41

WP(C) NO.19607 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

the view that the petitioner cannot insist that the agency should be permitted to continue the work or that the Corporation should not be permitted to dispense with the services of petitioner’s agency. The Corporation is bound by Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders and they will be taking steps to implement Exts.P1 and P2 stage by stage.

¶44

In view of the facts as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of recording the submission made on behalf of the Corporation that Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders will be implemented stage by stage. It is made clear that the petitioner being a member of Kudumbashree unit will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for enrolment in the Haritha Karma Sena through Kudumbashree Unit.

¶45

N. NAGARESH

¶46

sss

¶47

WP(C) NO.19607 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(RT) NO. 2420/2017/LSG DATED 15/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶52

Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO(RT) NO. 1496/2020/LSG DATED 12/08/2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶53

Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 17/01/2019.

¶54

Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT BASED ON THE INSPECTION DATED 13/04/2021 FILED BY THE CONVENER OF THE INSPECTION TEAM BEFORE THE SECRETARY.

¶55

Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE MANACADU KUDUMBASREE CLEANWELL UNIT PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶56

Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, MANAKKAD DATED 31/05/2022.

¶57

Exhibit P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/06/2022 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶58

Exhibit P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR REPRESENTATION DATED 06/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶59

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTICE NO. C1/5508/2021 DATED 25/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION

Sunitha Kumari C. S., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunitha Kumari C. S., 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

V.G.Jose Vs State of Kerala

V.G.Jose Vs State of Kerala

Tomy C Vadayil Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Praseeda Venu Vs Cochin Corporation Zonal Office

Abdurahiman K Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Kareem Vs the Vayalar Gramapanchayat, Represented by Its Secretary