O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943** ## **OP(KAT) NO. 301 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2019 IN OA NO.475/2016 OF KERALA** ## **ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN O.A:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PRINTING, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001.** - **3 THE GENERAL FOREMAN-IN-CHARGE, GOVERNMENT PRESS, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691598, KERALA.** **4 ZILLA FORMS OFFICER, ZILLA FORMS OFFICE, GOVERNMENT PRESS, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM-691598 (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.07.2016 IN M.A.NO.2247/2016), KERALA.** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **SHEELA P., AGED 43 YEARS W/O.YESUDAS, PART TIME SWEEPER (ON FIXED REMUNERATION), GOVT.PRESS UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691589, R/O.SHERLY BHAVAN, KALLUKUZHI, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA-691589.** **SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 2 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS & A.BADHARUDEEN, JJ.** **=========================================** ## **O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020** [ _arising out of the impugned final order in O.A No.475/2016 dated 03.12.2019 on the file of the KAT, TVM Bench_ ] **=========================================** Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** The prayers in the aforecaptioned original petition filed by the State of Kerala and the departmental authorities concerned, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows [see page No.8 of the paper book of the O.P] : _“.............. to set aside Exhibit P7 order dated 03.12.2019 in O.A.No.475/2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench by allowing this Original Petition.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P/respondents in the O.A and Sri.P.Raveendran, learned Advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A No.475/2016 filed by the respondent herein before the Kerala O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 3 Administrative Tribunal are as follows [see page Nos.18-19 of the paper book of the O.P] : - _“(i). To call for the records leading up to Annexure A3 and to quash Annexure A3 as illegal and arbitrary._ - _(ii). To issue a declaration that the applicant is entitled to regularization as part Time Sweeper w.e.f his date of joining the office on the basis of Annexure A1 Government Order With all consequential benefits including arrears of salary,_ - _(ii). (sic) To direct the respondents to regularize the service of the applicant as regular part time Sweeper at the office under the third respondent w.e.f 27.12.2004 on the basis of Annexure A1 Government Order with complete arrears of salary,_ - _(iii). To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in circumstances of this case.”_ 4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P7 final order dated 03.12.2019 in the instant O.A No.475/2016, wherein it has been found on the basis of the pleadings and materials on record that the original applicant has been working as Sweeper in the office establishment concerned since December, 2004 onwards and that the sweeping area since then was 100 Sq.M and above and that therefore, the original applicant is legally entitled to be regularized in terms of the provisions contained in Annexure-A1 G.O(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 w.e.f 27.12.2004 with all consequential benefits. It is this order at Ext.P7 rendered by the O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 4 Tribunal that is under challenge in this original petition. 5. The case of the original applicant is to the effect that she has been working as Sweeper in the Government Press Building, Kollam and that the sweeping area of the said office establishment was about 200 Sq.M. (plinth area being 216.44 Sq.M and the carpet area being 198.06 Sq.M.) and that since she was working as Sweeper as on the date of issuance of Annexure-A1 G.O(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 and since the sweeping area allotted to her was above the minimum threshold limit of 100 Sq.M., she is fully entitled for regularization in terms of the said G.O dated 25.11.2005. Further that, only for the purpose of denying her claim for regularization, the authorities concerned had always shown in the office records as if, about four other Sweepers were also employed and that two of them were the close relatives of the original applicant and the fourth name was an alias name of none other than the applicant and the fifth name was a stranger. Further that, the said records were so created only as a ruse to deny the right of regularization in favour of the original applicant. Further that, inspite of repeated requests, the departmental authorities concerned had refused to give details of the acquittance O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 5 register to show the payment of remuneration to the original applicant since December, 2004 and ultimately only the records from 2006 alone were disclosed to the original applicant. 6. The respondents in the O.A resisted the claims of the applicant by filing Ext.P2 reply statement dated 30.11.2018 of R2 in the O.A and Ext.P4 reply statement dated 05.11.2019 filed by R2 in the O.A. The main case set up therein was that the applicant was engaged as Sweeper in the establishment concerned only much after the issuance of Annexure-A1 G.O(P) dated 25.11.2005 and that the sweeping area was hardly about 50 Sq.M. or so. Further that, about five persons including the original applicant were working and therefore, none of the Sweepers including the applicant have any right to be regularized in terms of Annexure-A1 G.O. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after meticulously going through the pleadings and materials on records, has come to the considered conclusion that the case of the respondents that the original applicant has not been working since December, 2004, is factually wrong. Further that, the case of the respondents in the O.A to the effect that the sweeping area was much O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 6 less than the minimum threshold limit of 100 Sq.M. was also factually wrong. Therefore, what is to be essentially examined in this case is only as regards the correctness of the factual conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in this case. We will first deal up with the issue of sweeping area. Though the respondents in the O.A have taken up a factual case in the reply statement, that the sweeping area was hardly about 50 Sq.M or so, at the time when the original applicant was engaged. It is pertinent to note that in para 5 of Ext.P2 reply statement dated 30.11.2018 filed by R2 in the O.A, it is clearly admitted that the office establishment have started functioning in the year 2001 and that at first, the Government Press, Kollam was functioning in a rented building, which has a sweeping area of less than about 200 Sq.M. Further, on the basis of the specific directions issued by the Tribunal, the learned Government Pleader concerned after getting instructions from the departmental authorities concerned has filed memo dated December, 2019 before the Tribunal, wherein a certificate dated 03.09.2002 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, which would clearly show that the plinth area and the carpet area of the building in question at that O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 7 time was 216.44 Sq.M and 198.06 Sq.M. respectively [see Ext.P6(4) in page No.81 of the paper book]. There is no dispute for the respondents in the O.A that Ext.P6 is a certificate issued by the Public Works Department authorities as required in Annexure-A1 G.O. Thus it can be seen from the categorical admissions made subsequently by the respondents in the O.A both in para 5 of Ext.P2 reply statement as well as in the certificate dated 03.09.2002 that the sweeping area was about 200 Sq.M, even from the year 2001 onwards. Hence, the Tribunal was fully right in overruling the factual objections raised by the respondents in the O.A to the effect that sweeping area at the relevant time was much below the minimum threshold limit of 100 Sq.M. 8. Next factual matter to be ascertained is as to whether the original applicant has been working as Sweeper since December, 2004 or at any rate, on or before the issuance of Annexure-1 G.O(P) dated 25.11.2005. The applicant has consistently pleaded before the Tribunal and in her representations that she has been appointed as Sweeper in the Government Press Building, Kollam since December, 2004 onwards. Initially, the case taken up by the O.A was to the effect O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 8 that the records would show that she had been engaged only since 2006 or so. However, it is admitted in para 4 of Ext.P4 letter issued by the General Foreman of the Government Press, Kollam addressed to the Director of Printing, that the applicant was one among the five persons who were working as Sweepers since December, 2005 as per the records [Annexure-R2(a) given on page 72]. The materials produced along with the O.A would show that the applicant has been making request after request before the departmental authorities concerned under the Right to Information Act both before the original authority concerned as well as the appellate authority to give copies of the acquittance register for the period from December, 2004 to show the remunerations paid to the Sweepers in the said establishment. The stand taken by the respondents is that the acquittance register from December, 2004 is not available and only the acquittance register from 2006 alone is available. From the abovesaid admissions of the respondents in the O.A, it appears that there may be records to show that the applicant has been paid the remuneration as Sweeper at least from December, 2005. Therefore, it would strongly probabilise the aspect that the original applicant would have been in service as a O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 9 Sweeper at least from November, 2005 onwards. 9. The Tribunal, after referring to a similar verdict in T.A No.382/2013 ( _**M.Sobha v. State of Kerala & Ors.**_ ) held that an analysis of the factual scenario and materials would show that the abovesaid attempt of the respondents in the O.A is only to refuse the relief or regularization in favour of the applicant and that the further plea taken up by them that about five Sweepers including the applicant, who were working at the relevant time, also cannot be believed. In the verdict of the Tribunal in T.A No.382/2013, it was found that the case of the respondents therein was to the effect that more than one sweepers including the applicant therein, who were working and that therefore, the applicant therein cannot claim the right of regularization in terms of the above G.O. In para 5 of the final order in T.A No.382/2013, the Tribunal has noticed that from June, 2003 onwards, the applicant in that case and her husband were shown as working every alternate month and that the case of the applicant was that her husband's name was also shown only for the purpose of records and that the Tribunal has taken cognizance of the fact that such state of affairs exist in many cases and having regard to the O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 10 totality of the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is fully inclined to believe the version of the applicant that she has been engaged as Sweeper continuously and that her husband's name was shown only in the records for extraneous reasons and held that the applicant therein is entitled for regularization in terms of the above G.O dated 25.11.2005. In this case also, the respondents in the O.A had raised a case that from December, 2005 onwards, five Sweepers have been working as Part-Time Sweepers on rotation, viz., 1. Smt.Sheeladas, residing at Sherle Bhavan, 2. Smt.Sheela.P (address not mentioned), 3. Smt.Aanse.L, 4. Sri.Albin and 5. Sri.Manu [see Annexure-R2(a) on page 72 of the paperbook]. The Village Officer concerned has certified as per Annexure-A8 certificate dated 08.06.2016 that the abovesaid Smt.Sheeladas and Smt.Sheela.P (supra) is one and the same person viz., the original applicant. Further, the Tribunal has found that two other persons out of the five persons are close family relatives of the original applicant and the other person concerned is a stranger. The learned counsel for the original applicant has pointed out that records were created by the respondents to show that five persons were working only to defeat the claims of the applicant for regularization O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 11 and the fact that two out of the five persons is a duplication of the name of the applicant and two other persons are their close relatives, would show that the records were created only for such extraneous considerations. The Tribunal has found that the original applicant has strongly probabilised the case that she was the rightful claimant who is entitled for regularization and that no other persons have made any claim for regularization. The fact of the matter is that serial Nos.1 & 2 above is one and the same person namely, the original applicant and two other persons are the close family relatives of the original applicant and the fifth person is a stranger, who has not made any claim. At any rate, none of the persons other than the original applicant has made any claim for regularization on the basis of the above G.O till date. These circumstances would clearly show that the abovesaid case set up by the respondents as if, five Sweepers were working at the relevant time, is not be believable and probable case set up by the respondents in the O.A. The said fact finding made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. Hence, we are not in a position to disturb the said considered fact finding made by the Tribunal in favour of the original applicant. Inspite of many O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 12 attempts of the original applicant, the respondents have not made available the acquittance register which would have shown the pay details given by the respondents in the O.A to the Sweepers working in that office from December, 2004 onwards since the respondents in the O.A have produced materials only from 2006 onwards. The earlier case set up by them that the sweeping area was only 50 Sq.M. has been delayed by their own subsequent admissions. Two out of the five persons mentioned above is a duplication of the name of the original applicant and two other persons are close family relatives of the original applicant. These aspects would also show that the records produced by the respondents in the O.A are not believable or will not probabilise the case of the respondents. The Department themselves have admitted in Annexure-R2(a) [see page 72 of the paper book] that the original applicant has been working since December, 2005 onwards. This would strongly probabilise the case of the original applicant that she has been working at least since 2005 onwards. 10. The Tribunal has taken the view that the case of the original applicant that she has been working since December, 2004 is reliable and believable. But the fact of the matter is that as of now, no O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 13 records have been produced to show that the original applicant has been working since December, 2004 onwards. From the abovesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the firm view that the original applicant has been able to strongly probabilise the case that she has been working at least since November, 2005 onwards and that she has been working as Sweeper as on the date of Annexure-A1 G.O dated 25.11.2005. Hence, we are thus constrained to slightly modify the direction of the Tribunal and hold that the original applicant is to be regularized in terms of Annexure-A1 G.O w.e.f 25.11.2005, if not from 27.12.2004. 11. The learned Senior Government Pleader has raised a contention based on a subsequent G.O issued by the Government viz., G.O(P) No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09.02.2010. In that regard, the learned Senior Government Pleader has also invited out attention to paras 8, 9 & 12 of Ext.P4 reply statement dated 04.11.2019 filed by the 2[nd] respondent in the O.A. In para 12 of Ext.P4 reply statement, it is stated that the original applicant was engaged as Sweeper by the Department on casual basis in the Government Press, Kollam, which had no permanent establishment and that the Press is being run by O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 14 deploying employees on other duty from other Government Presses on the department for executing the specific work assigned by the Department from time to time and that in view of the stipulations in para 3(ii) of G.O (P) No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09.02.2010, Sweepers engaged in temporary establishments will not be entitled for regularization irrespective of the length of service, sweeping area, etc. Further, it is also averred in para 9 of Ext.P4 reply statement that Kollam District Form Store was shifted to Kollam Government Press Building in the year 2011 and that one Smt.Usha Devi is working as part-time sweeper in the Form Store, which is occupying the major portion of the building and that as major part of the sweeping area is being swept by the Sweeper, Smt.Usha Devi, the original applicant is not entitled for regularization, etc. It is also pointed out that now the total sweeping area in the Government Press building is 624.13 Sq.M., as per Annexure-A9 certificate dated 25.07.2017 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Building Section, Kollam. 12. In that regard, it is to be noted that para 3(ii) of G.O (P) No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09.02.2010, reads as follows : - _“3_ _**.** In view of the above observations Government felt it highly necessary to incorporate certain modifications / clarification to_ O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 15 _the existing Government Order. Accordingly the following clarifications are issued._ _i)_ xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx - _ii) In temporary establishments of Government, which are created for a specific purpose and for a specific period, post of part time sweeper shall not be allowed. However the person engaged for sweeping in such offices shall be entitled to payment at par with that of regular part time sweepers / casual sweepers, with effect from the date of this order strictly based on the sweeping area of such offices, calculated in accordance with Appendix to the GO read as 3[rd] paper above. In any case, the sweepers engaged in temporary establishments shall not be entitled for regularization irrespective of their length of service, sweeping area etc. Hereinafter, all fresh appointments of sweepers in temporary establishments shall be made only through nearest Kudumbasree unit.”_ There is no dispute that the abovesaid G.O (P) No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09.02.2010 has been issued long after the issuance of the basic government order concerned viz., Annexure-A1 G.O(P) No.501/2005/Fin. Dated 25.11.2005. It is also common ground that the restrictions in para 3(2) of G.O (P) No.61/2010/Fin. Dated 09.02.2010, are not contained in Annexure-A1 G.O(P) dated 25.11.2005. In view of the abovesaid findings, we have already held that the original applicant was serving as Sweeper in the office establishment as on the date of issuance of Annexure-A1 G.O(P) dated O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 16 25.11.2005 and at that relevant time, the sweeping area was about 200Sq.M. or so, at any rate,it was much above the minimal threshold limit of 100 Sq.M. The restrictions in para 3.2 of G.O (P) dated 09.02.2010 has not been incorporated in Annexure-A1 G.O (P) dated 25.11.2005. Hence, the original applicant was legally entitled for regularization as on the date of the issuance of G.O(P) dated 25.11.2005. The said right accrued to the original applicant cannot be taken away by subsequent executive orders issued by the Government. Further, it is to be noted that a mere reading of Annexure-A1 G.O(P) dated 25.11.2005 would make it clear like the day light that the same norms have been issued by the Government only to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the judgments referred to therein. 13. A Division Bench of this Court has held in decisions as in judgment dated 07.07.2010 rendered in W.A No.2199/2009 has considered a similar contention raised by the departmental authorities on the basis of G.O (P) No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09.02.2010 and has noted that the said restrictions regarding taking away excluding right of regularization in temporary establishments may have been issued to get over the judgment earlier rendered by this Court in similar cases O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 17 and has further held that their Lordships do not think that the benefit of a Government order available and declared by this Court could be taken away by a subsequent Government order. The Division Bench of this Court therein noted that there could be many offices like re-survey offices, land acquisition offices, etc., which may be functioning for a definite period and then may be either closed or may be started in other places, etc. That apart, in the instant case, the restrictions envisaged in the subsequent G.O dated 09.02.2010 cannot take away the right already accrued in favour of the original applicant on the basis of Annexure-A1 G.O dated 25.11.2005. That apart, we note that the Government Press Building, Kollam is one of the institutions of the Government Press Department, which is functioning in a district centre of the State, viz., Kollam. The pleadings and materials would show that the said office was functioning for a very long time and at least from 2001 onwards and even from the pleadings of the respondents in the O.A, it is seen that another establishment of the Government Press, viz., District Press Store has been shifted to the building in which the Government Press, Kollam is now functioning. Therefore, these aspects would clearly show that the requirement to house the office establishment is not merely temporary or short term that may otherwise be the case in Land Acquisition offices for a temporary period. As regards, the other O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 18 contentions raised by the original applicants on the basis of the retention of one Smt.Ushadevi, who was earlier working in the Government Press Store, Kollam, it is to be noted that it is an admitted case of the respondents in the O.A that the Government Press Store was shifted to the Government Press building only in the year 2011. Therefore, it is at that time that Smt.Ushadevi has also been accommodated as Sweeper in the present office establishment. It may be true that the sweeping area shown in Ext.P6(4) dated 03.09.2002 (about 200 Sq.M) has been increased as 624.13 Sq.M as per Annexure-A9 certificate dated 25.07.2017. It may also be true that therefore, major part of the sweeping area may be allotted to Smt.Ushadevi, after the year 2011. But, the fact remains that the original applicant was entitled for regularization as on the date of issuance of Annexure-A1 G.O dated 25.11.2005. The said right accrued to the applicant in the year 2005 cannot be taken away by way of subsequent factual averments, which has occurred in the year 2011. Therefore, the said aspect regarding the retention of the other Sweeper after the shifting of another office building to the present office premises, cannot be the ground to legally deny the benefit of regularization due to the applicant in terms of the above G.O. Hence, for these reasons, we are constrained to overrule the abovesaid contentions of the petitioners as well. O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 19 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Tribunal is right in holding that the original applicant is entitled for regularization in terms of Annexure-A1 G.O dated 25.11.2005. However, as mentioned hereinabove, we only slightly modified the direction of the Tribunal and hold that the competent authority among the petitioners herein /respondents in the O.A shall give the benefit of regularization in terms of Annexure-A1 G.O to the original applicant w.e.f 25.11.2005 and not from 27.12.2004. Further, we order that the directions of the Tribunal as modified above, shall be complied with by the petitioners herein, without any further delay, at any rate, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** ## **Sd/A.BADHARUDHEEN, JUDGE** vgd O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 20 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 301/2020** **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF OA ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.501/2005/FIN.**| ||**DATED 25.11.2005.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA 2208/2013 BY**| ||**THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.02.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE FIRST**| ||**RESPONDENT**<br>**G.O(RT)NO.1861/15/H.EDN.**| ||**DATED 20.07.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**| ||**UNDER RTI DATED 14.11.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE A4(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE PIO**| ||**NO.733/15/FSK2 DATED 04.12.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF APPEAL UNDER RTI DATED**| ||**26.12.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE A5(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.733/15/SK2 DATED**| ||**12.01.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.31362/2015/F4**| ||**DATED 29.01.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE A6(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF REVIEW DATED 06.02.2016.**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**| ||**UNDER RTI DATED 27.12.2015.**| |**ANNEXURE A7(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.733/15/FSK2 DATED**| ||**21.01.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED**| O.P (KAT) No.301 of 2020 21 ## **ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **EXHIBIT P3** **A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICATION AGAINST THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IS PRODUCED NO.1881/16 DATED 08.06.2016.** - **ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AREA SKETCH, CALCULATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PRESS KOLLAM NO.635/17 DATED 25.07.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 04.11.2019 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.50/15/GPK(GNL) DATED 23.04.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 12.11.2019 FILED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6** **A PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH DOCUMENTS. 1. ORDER DATED 03.09.2002 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTION ENGINEER, KOLLAM FIXING RENT OF THE BUILDING, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT PRESS, KOLLAM FUNCTIONED DURING THE SAID PERIOD. 2. RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 24.03.2001 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND LANDLORD OF THE BUILDING. 3.G.O.(RT)NO.805/04/H.EDN DATED 17.06.2004 SANCTIONING RENT FIXED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER. 4. RECEIPT OF RENT DATED 07.07.004 ISSUED BY THE LANDLORD.** **EXHIBIT P7** **A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2019 IN OA NO.475/2016.**