C. Pankajam v. State of Kerala & ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2012/9TH SRAVANA 1934 WA.No. 135 of 2007 IN WPC:18137/2006 ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.18137/2006 DATED 21-07-2006 ................... ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- C. PANKAJAM, W/O.RAMADAS, PART-TIME SWEEPER ON FIXED CHARGES, KRISHI BHAVAN NELLLIYAMPATHY P.O., TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, NELLIYAMPATHY P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.I. DAVIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 135 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.** Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.M.V. Thamban as well as learned Government Pleader. 2. The controversy in the present appeal is with regard to the actual sweeping area that has to be ascertained for payment of wages to the 'Part Time Sweepers'. The relevant document which has to be taken into consideration is Ext.P4 notification dated 25.11.2005. It refers to several notifications of various dates including other relevant notification of 2003 apart from the two judgments at Exts.P2 and P3. The relevant paragraph of this notification is paragraph 11 which would indicate how the sweeping area has to be worked out and what amounts shall be paid to a particular sweeper with reference to the slab they fall in, i.e. the total measurement of the area. Paragraph 11 reads as follows: WA No. 135 of 2007 -:2:- “11. The guidelines at Appendix shall also be applied to offices which already have part-time contingent sweepers. If, consequent to the re-fixation of the area in such offices in accordance with the guidelines, the sweeping area increases from below 400 mtrs. to above 400 mtrs. the part-time sweeper concerned shall be entitled to the higher remuneration of Rs.1500 plus DA, but with effect from the date of the Government Order only. If the area reduces from above 400 mtrs. to below 400 mtrs. the remuneration of the particular part-time sweeper shall not be reduced from Rs.1500 plus DA. The existing incumbent shall continue to get what he was getting. But the employee posted against the next vacancy should be given wages as per the rules. If, on fixation, the sweeping area reduces from above 100 sq.mtrs. to below 100 sq.mtrs. the remuneration of the existing part-time sweeper, if he is getting Rs.1250 p.m. plus DA, shall not be reduced. He shall continue to get what he was getting. Here also, the next vacancy in the post should be filled up by the casual sweeper only, by paying Rs.600 per month.” ## 3. The contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was, there is discrimination and the Part Time Sweepers are not paid for the actual work they do and further taking 1/3[rd] of the courtyard area would leave the appellants without any payment for the actual work done by them where vast area of courtyard has to be cleaned. The learned Single WA No. 135 of 2007 -:3:- Judge while referring to various judgments of this Court pointed out the contribution made by this Court when it took cognizance of the plight of Part Time Sweepers who were appointed on daily wages in **Mercy v. State of Kerala** [2004 (2) KLT 848]. 3. We also note from Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, the details which lead to a change in the service conditions and also wages of Part Time Sweepers. Subsequently, one year later in a batch of appeals a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1863 of 2004 and other matters, again referred to the plight of the Part Time Sweepers with reference to the Government Order of 2003 and Government Order of 2005. The entire dispute now revolves round the Government Order at Ext.P4 dated 25.11.2005. As already stated above, paragraph 1 of the guidelines is relevant in order to understand the relevant question of controversy between the parties. The details mentioned in the Appendix how the sweeping area has to be measured is also relevant which is part of Ext.P4 and reads as follows: WA No. 135 of 2007 -:4:- “1. Sweeping area means the aggregate of the following: (i) Carper area i.e. the usable floor area, excluding the area of terrace, car porch, staircases, lift wells, escalators, ducts, toilets, air conditions plant room and electrical control room. (ii) Area of car porch, staircase, verandah or corridor, if such car porch, stair case/verandah/corridor is under the exclusive use of the office is question, provided it is used regularly by the office staff and/or the general public and if it is to be swept regularly. Thus, for example, that portion of the staircase leading to a terrace which is not used need not be swept, so will be excluded from the sweeping area. (iii) Toilets used exclusively by the office in question or the general public visiting such an office, if it is to be washed and cleaned regularly. (iv) If there is a courtyard attached to the office, then the area of the courtyard actually swept, subject to the condition that this shall not exceed one third of the aggregate of (i), (ii) and (iii) above.” 4. The guidelines would refer to the earlier situation and also the present situation subsequent to 25.11.2005 in the light of the judgments of this Court. Paragraph 1(i) indicates the sweeping area and the definite payment to be made to the Part Time Sweepers along with Dearness Allowance(for short 'DA') WA No. 135 of 2007 -:5:- depending upon the slab within which they come. The appendix of the guidelines referred to calculation of the sweeping area. Reading of these two sub clauses of Clause 1 makes the position crystal clear that the sweeping area has to be calculated on the basis of Clause 1 (iv) of the guideline. So far as Clause 1 (i) to (iii) of the guidelines, there is no dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the guideline(iv). A reading of these would indicate 1/3[rd] of the area covered at sub clauses (i) to (iii) will be taken as sweeping area to calculate in which slab the Part Time Sweeper would fall. Depending upon the area, a definite quantum of wages plus D.A. is fixed. Under any circumstance as on the date of notification i.e. 25.11.2005, by virtue of the re-fixation of guidelines, no Part Time Sweepers will get reduction in the wages that were received by them as on the date of notification. Therefore, in order to give equal treatment to all the Part Time Sweepers, slabs, so far as the sweeping area, are brought into existence apart from variation in the wages as well depending upon the measurement of the sweeping area. Therefore, uniform wage yardstick is applied by virtue of this WA No. 135 of 2007 -:6:- guideline depending upon the area a particular sweeper has to clean and it could be termed as sweeping area as per the Appendix of the guidelines. Therefore, by applying this guideline uniformly to all the Part Time Sweepers, definitely it will not lead to a situation where there is imbalance or inequality so far as the treatment of the Part Time Sweepers. There cannot be any scope for manipulation in calculating the area. 5. Once the sweeping area is arrived at as per the appendix and the guidelines, the next thing to be considered is under what slab of payment a particular Part Time Sweeper would be covered. Then, automatically the fixed wages + D.A. would be paid depending upon the sweeping area. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in saying that the guidelines have not left any scope for interpretation which would result in injustice to any particular sweeper. Therefore, we are of the opinion, no material is placed before us warranting any interference. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, nothing prevents the Part Time Sweepers as a group to give a representation to revise the guidelines to take WA No. 135 of 2007 -:7:- into account the actual area of courtyard and the same may be considered depending upon the facts and circumstances prevailing at the relevant point of time. **Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice.** **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/01/08