OP(KAT) No. 287 of 2021

**OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1943 OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.2017 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN OA (EKM) 1296/2017** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001, KERALA. 2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001, KERALA. 3 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, KERALA. 4 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA 688 001. 5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THAMARAKULAM, THAMARAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA 690 530 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1) **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 2** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE O.A.:** M. LALITHA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.N.VASUDEVAN, PART TIME SWEEPER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THAMARAKULAM, THAMARAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 530, RESIDING AT POTHUVATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, THAMARAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA KERALA 690 530 BY ADV M.V.THAMBAN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 3** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ. ========================================= O.P (KAT) No.287 of 2021** [A _rising out of the impugned final order dated 2.8.2017 in OA(EKM).No.1296/2017 of the KAT, EKM_ ] **=========================================** Dated this the 27[th] day of October, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas, J.** The sole respondent herein had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by instituting Ext.P1 Original Application OA(EKM) No.1296 of 2017 essentially praying that directions be issued to the respondent therein to regularize her as Part Time Casual Sweeper, w.e.f. 18.6.2001 as envisaged in para 8 of Annexure-A2 G.O (P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005 and for consequential arrears of pay in that regard. 2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P2 final order dated 2.8.2017 by allowing the main pleas of the applicant in that O.A with the specific finding that the applicant fulfills all the necessary conditions for getting the benefits of regularization as envisaged in Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005 and that the respondents in the O.A should regularize her in the post of Part Time Casual Sweeper w.e.f. 18.6.2001 as stipulated in para 8 of ## **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 4** Annexure-A2 G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005 and consequently directions in the matters of arrears of pay have also been given. Being aggrieved by the said final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P2, the respondents in the O.A have instituted in the present original petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Shri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the OP/respondents in the O.A and Shri.M.V.Thamban, the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/ the sole applicant before the Tribunal. 4. The essential facts leading to the present case are as follows: [see page Nos.1 & 2 of the paper book of the O.P] : _“The petitioners herein are the Respondents and the respondent herein is the applicant in the Original Application O.A.(EKM)No.1296/2017. This OP(KAT) is filed aggrieved by the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 02.08.2017 in OA(EKM)No.1296/2017 setting aside Annexure A5 Government order dated 14.12.2016 by which the service of the respondent was regularized from the date of the order. The Tribunal further directs the first petitioner to issue order regularizing the respondent in service with effect from 18.6.2001 and to give consequential benefits and arrears, for which she is not entitled._ _The respondent herein was working as casual sweeper at Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakulam with effect from 01.09.1989. She was paid regular pay from 25.11.1998 tyo 31.07.2005 as per the judgment of this Court in OP No.29876/03. As per the direction contained in Government letter No.10138/AF3/07/Agri dated 27.06.2007, the salary of the respondent was reduced to Rs.600/-. Challenging the reduction of salary, the respondent filed WP(C) No.22205/2009 before this Court. This Court by an_ ## **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 5** _interim order dated 05.08.2009 stayed the termination of the service of the petitioner and directed the respondents to pay her the salary at the rate of Rs.1250/- mensem along with dearness allowance till it was revised and the revised rates thereafter. On constitution of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the case was transferred and re-numbered as TA No.3781/2012._ _During the pendency of the TA before the Tribunal, Government have regularized the service of the respondent mas Part Time Sweeper in Thamarakulam Krishi Bhavan with effect from the date of order as per GO(MS)No.175/2016/AGR dated 14.12.2016 since the sweeping area was found to be 100.99 Square Metre, when measured in connection with TA No.3781/2012. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the case without prejudice to the right of the applicant to raise the dispute, if any, with regard to the date of effect of the regularization_ _Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A(EKM) No.1296/2017 before the Tribunal challenging Annexure-A5 Government Order on the ground that the date of regularization was fixed as 14.12.2016 instead of 18.06.2001 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the guidelines contained in GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005. The tribunal found that the respondent herein is entitled for the benefits she claimed. Hence, the above OP(KAT) is filed_ . 5. According to the applicant, she has been working as Part Time Casual Sweeper in the office of the Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakulam in Alappuzha District, since 1.9.1989. and that she has been continuous in service in that capacity since then. That the sweeping area of the then premises of the office was above the threshold limit of 100 square meter and that she was in service as on the issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005 and that the sweeping area as on the date of issuance of that GO, in the then old premises was also above the threshold limit of 100 square meter above, and that she fulfilled all the eligibility **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 6** conditions for being regularized as Part Time Casual sweeper as ordered by the Government, in para No.8 of that G.O w.e.f 18.6.2001 etc.. Earlier, before the issuance of Annexure-A2 GO dated 25.11.2005, there were litigations initiated at the instance of the applicant. Initially, Writ Petition Civil, W.P.(C).No.29876 of 2003 was filed by the original applicant herein, in which this Court had rendered Annexure-R1(a) judgment dated 24.9.2003 disposing of W.P.(C) No.29876 of 2003 ordering in para No.4 thereof, that if the area to be swept in the then premises is below 100 square meter, the consolidated amount referred to G.O.(P) No.3000/1998/Fin, dated 25.11.1998 alone is to be taken into account and that arrears of pay shall be payable to the applicant herein w.e.f. 25.11.1998 onwards. The said judgment of this Court as per Annexure-R1(a) dated 24.9.2003 rendered in W.P.(C) No.29876 of 2003, reads as follows: _“ Petitioners are part time sweepers and seek the benefit of the Government Orders in the matter of extending to them the proper scales of pay._ _2. Reference is made to the decision reported in_ _**Santhamma Amma v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT SN 59)** as also the latter cases as OP 18615/2002 and connected cases._ _3. Government Pleader was heard in the matter._ _4. I direct the respondents to sanction and disburse the salary to the petitioners as admissible to the part time_ **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 7** _contingent employees from time to time, taking note of the periodical pay revision orders, as far as possible, within a period of three months from today. Their period of service has to be adequately taken notice of. Whether or not they were recruited through proper channel need not be a factor for the purpose of grant of the wages._ _4. (sic) If the area to be swept is below 100 sq.m. the consolidated amount referred to in GO(P) 3000/98/Fin., dated 25.11.1998 alone is to be taken into account. The arrears payable shall be paid from 25.11.1993 onwards._ _The writ petitions are disposed of as above.”_ It is thereafter, that this Court has rendered the common judgment dated 18.6.2004 in W.P.(C) No.30927 of 2003 and 14 other connected cases (referred to as item No.10 in Annexure-A2 G.O), based on which the competent authority State Government in the Finance Department had issued Annexure-A2 G.O(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005 issuing directions in the matter of regularization, etc. 6. Further, the applicant had filed another Writ Petition as W.P.(C) No.4024 of 2006 before this Court, wherein certain challenge appears to have been made at the instance of the applicant, as against the guidelines for measurement of the sweeping area as contained in appendix to Annexure-A2 G.O, since according to the applicant, she suffered reduction of pay, etc.. This Court as per the common judgment dated 21.7.2006 in the said W.P.(C) No.4024 of 2006 and certain other connected cases had _inter alia_ held that the challenge as **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 8** against the guidelines for measurement, need not be entertained inasmuch as even if there is any reduction of sweeping area, subsequent to the issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005, still the party concerned need not have any grievance inasmuch as the relevant aspect is as to what exactly was the sweeping area based on the guideline as on the date of issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005, and that even after remeasurement, if there is any reduction in area, the entitlement of the incumbent to get the requisite pay is protected but not for regularization. It is further ordered by this Court, in that judgment that interim orders passed by this Court will continue till the heads of offices or the controlling authorities, if any, as the case may be, decide otherwise based on the above said Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005. In other words, this Court has thus made it clear that the norms in Annexure- A2 G.O. (P)No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005 will have to be adhered to. 7. Still further, the original applicant has filed yet another WP(C) as W.P.(C)No.222o5 of 2009, which after the establishment of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to that Tribunal wherein it has been re-numbered as Transferred Application, T.A. **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 9** No.378 of 2012. This transferred application culminated in AnnexureA6 final order dated 25.10.2017, wherein the Tribunal had recorded that during the pendency of the said case, Government had issued G.O.(MS) No.175/2016/Agri., dated 14.12.2016, whereby a post of Part Time Sweeper was created in Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakulam and it was ordered to regularize service of the applicant from the date of the said GO (14.10.2016). The Tribunal as per Annexure-A6 final order recorded the said GO dated 14.10.2016 and closed the case without prejudice to the right of the applicant to raise dispute, if any, with regard to the date of regularization. 8. It is thereafter, that the applicant has filed the instant Ext.P1 original application O.A (EKM) No.1296 of 2017 before the Tribunal, praying that Annexure-A5 herein, viz., G.O.(MS) No.175/2016/Agri., dated 14.12.2016 (also referred in Annexure-A6 verdict), to the limited extent that it has refused to grant the date of regularization of the applicant as 18.6.2001 as ordered in para No.8 of Annexure-A2 GO. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has held that the sweeping area certificate as per Annexure-A1 herein, dated 10.5.2005 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Haripad, is one material, **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 10** which would clearly show that the sweeping area of the then old premises of the Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakulam was 120.74 square meter. Further, it appears that though a bland plea was taken by the respondents in the O.A to the effect that the sweeping area of the old premises as on the date of issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.10.2005 was actually below the threshold limit of 100 sq.mtr., above, inasmuch as certain areas excludable in terms of Annexure-A2 Go has been included in Annexure-A1 certificate, more particularly as Annexure-A1 certificate issued on 10.5.2005, which is prior to the issuance of Annexure-A2 GO dated 25.11.2005, etc. It appears that the office of the Krishi Bhavan, Thamarakulam was later shifted to new premises and the case of the official respondents is that at the initial point of time, the said sweeping area as per Annexure-A2 G.O was below the threshold limit of 100 sq.mtr and it is much later that the sweeping area exceeded 100 sq.mtr., above as per Annexure-A4 sweeping area certificate dated 25.9.2015 issued by the Public Works Department, wherein it is certified that the then sweeping area is 100.99 sq.mtr. The respondent in the O.A, thus contended that the decision taken by them as per Annexure-A5 G.O dated 14.12.2016 to limit the regulrization only w.e.f 14.12.2016 does not require any ## **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 11** interdiction etc. The Tribunal has overruled the said plea and has granted the relief as aforesaid. 10. After hearing both sides, it is seen that Annexure-A1 is indisputably a relevant material, which would show that as on 10.5.2005, the total sweeping area of the then old premises of the Krishi Bhavan of Thamarakulam was 120.77 sq.mtr., which is including of ground floor Stair room, store and first floor, etc.. True that Annexure-A1 Certificate dated 10.5.2005 has been issued prior to the issuance of Annexure-A2 GO dated 25.11.2005. It is also true that the store room has also been included as per Annexure-A1 G.O. There are no specific materials or pleadings to show that as a matter of fact, measurement was done by the Departmental Authorities, immediately after the issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005 and before they had shifted from the old premises to indicate that the total sweeping area of the old premises at least immediately after the issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005 happened to be less than the minimal threshold limit of 100 sq.mtr., or above. The only material available to even suggest is the one at Ext.P3 dated 4.2.2016 issued by the Directorate of Agriculture, wherein it appears that the total sweeping area of the then old premises as per the guidelines at **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 12** Annexure-A2 was below the threshold limit of 100 sq. mtr. placing reliance on Ext.P3 cannot be countenanced by this Court for reasons more than one. Firstly, Ext.P3 has not been relied on and produced by the petitioners herein, at any point of time, during any of the four round of litigations including the present O.A. Ext.P3 indisputably was not part of the pleadings before the Tribunal. Further, Ext.P3 is issued as late as on 4.2.2016, after much water had flowed under the bridge. As per the pleadings of the petitioners herein, the office had functioned in the old premises till about 2.12.2006 and immediately thereafter, it was shifted to the new premises. Except asserting a bland stand in para No.2 of Ext.P3, no materials are indicated therein to show as to whether any measurement was done of the sweeping area of the old premises immediately after the issuance of Annexure.A2, GO dated 25.11.2005 and that such re-measurement had found that the total sweeping area as per the guidelines in respect of the old premises was below the threshold limit. Further, after shifting of the premises, the sweeping area as on 2.12.2006 is admitted to be above 100 sq.mtr. as can be seen from para No.2 of Ext.P3. In that regard, the conduct of the respondents in the O.A would also be relevant in the matter, inasmuch as, the factual aspects in para No.2 of Ext.P3 that the **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 13** sweeping area of the new premises as on 2.12.2006 happened to be above 100 sq. mtr., has been in a way rather completely suppressed in the pleadings, both before the Tribunal and in the original petition before this Court. The facts stated by the respondents in the O.A, para No.2 of Ext.P3 would also reveal that even according to them, on 2.12.2006 (the day on which the office was shifted to the new premises) was above the threshold limit of 100 sq.mtr.. Further, Annexure-R1(b) now produced by the applicant herein before this Court would show that the certificate dated 17.3.2006 issued by the Public Works Department Authorities, wherein it is certified that the then sweeping area was 114.94 sq.mtr., Annexure-A4 is the certificate dated 25.9.2015 issued by the Public Works Department, which apparently was based on re-measurement, which would show that the sweeping area was 100.99 sq.mtr., as regards the new premises concerned. It has to be borne in mind, that the relevant factual issue is as to what exactly of the sweeping area measured on the basis of the Appendix to Annexure-A2 G.O, as on the date of issuance of AnnexureA2 G.O dated 25.11.2005. No materials have been relied on by the respondents, either in this round of litigation, before this Court or in the corresponding case conducted before the Tribunal or in any of the ## **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 14** previous rounds to even remotely suggest that a measurement of the sweeping area of the old premises was done and that the sweeping area thereof as per the guidelines at Annexure-A2 happened to be below the threshold limit of 100 sq.mtr.. As indicated herein above, the only allegation thereon raised in Ext.P3, which is bereft of any supporting materials. On the other hand, Annexure-A1 is a material which would show that as on 10.5.2005 (which is prior to the issuance of AnnexureA1 GO dated 10.5.2005), the sweeping area was 120.77 sq.mtr.. But obviously, the store room was then included which happened to be not in accordance with the subsequently issued guidelines at Annexure-A2 dated 25.11.2005. No case has been set up on the basis of materials to show that the sweeping area was below 100 sq.mtr., or that the area of store mentioned in Annexure-A1, was duly measured and that after deducting that area, the total sweeping area happened to be below 100 sq.mtr. The crucial aspect of the matter is that after the issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005, the respondents in the O.A. should have conducted a proper measurement with due notice to the affected party like the applicant and ascertain the exact sweeping area of the premises which has been used as on 25.11.2005, etc. That has not been done. Even if the measurement has not been done behind **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 15** back to the applicant., the same cannot be relied on. This aspect that the sweeping area happened to be below the threshold area as on 25.11.2005 has not been specifically asserted and established on the basis of cogent materials and pleadings in any of the previous round of litigative efforts. Therefore, at this late stage, we cannot upturn the verdict of the Tribunal merely based on the observations in para No.1 of Ext.P3 dated 4.2.2016, which is a new document produced before this Court for the first time and which has never been produced or established before the Tribunal in the present round or in the previous round. Therefore, it has only to be held that the sweeping area of the office premises as on 25.11.2005 in terms of Annexure-A2 guidelines was above the minimum threshold limit of 100 sq.mtr. above as held by the Tribunal. The said fact finding is not amenable for interdiction by us, sitting in supervisory jurisdiction, in the absence of any cogent pleadings and materials on record. There is no dispute for the respondents in the O.A that the applicant has been working in service as Part Time Casual Sweeper much before the cut of date of 25.11.2005, which is the date of issuance of Annexure-A2. As a matter of fact, the specific plea of the applicant is that she has been in service as on 1.9.1989, this Court as per Annexure-R1(a) judgment in W.P. **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 16** (C).No.29876 of 2003 rendered as early as on 24.9.2003 has held that she is entitled for the pay scale as ordered in GO(P) No.3000/1998/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 depending upon the sweeping area concerned. Therefore, Annexure-R1(a) judgment rendered by this Court is also a clear indication that she has been in service as Part Time Casual Sweeper much before the cut of date of 25.11.2005 at Annexure-A2 G.O. So long as the incumbent satisfies was in service as casual Part Time Sweeper as on the cut of date of 25.11.2005 (the date of issuance of Annexure-A2 G.O) and so long as the sweeping area of the premises is equal to or above the minimum threshold limit of 100.sq.mtr or above, the incumbent is entitled for regularization in terms of para No.8 of Annexure-A2 G.O.. Even if the sweeping area, is above the threshold limit of 100 sq.mtr. as on 25.11.2005 and is subsequently reduced to below the threshold limit, for any reasons, still the right of the applicant on satisfying the above said conditions, is not in any manner extinguished or taken away. Therefore, para No.8 of Annexure-A2 G.O has clearly mandated that post shall be created w.e.f from the date of appointment of the incumbent as Part Time Casual Sweeper or from 18.6.2001 (3 years preceding the date of the judgment dated 18.6.2004 referred to the 10 paper in Annexure-A2 G.O), ## **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 17** whichever is later. In the instant case, the applicant has been in service even prior to 18.6.2001 and therefore, she cannot claim an anterior date, but is certainly entitled to get the benefit of regularization w.e.f 18.6.2001, though Annexure-A2 GO is issued on 25.11.2005. Hence, the Tribunal was fully right in holding for the entitlement of the applicant for getting the benefit of regularization as Part Time Casual Sweeper w.e.f 18.6.2001 as ordered in para No.8 of Annexure-A2 GO. The only other issue that remains is that the Tribunal has observed in last line of para No.5 of the impugned Ext.P2 final order that arrears of salary from 25.11.1998 will also be paid to the applicant. From a reading of the pleadings and materials on record, it appears that there are no indication as to how this date 25.11.1998 has crept in. As indicated above, the right crystalised in favour of the applicant on the basis of para No.8 of Annecure-A2 GO is for regularization w.e.f. 18.6.2001. On being queried on these aspects, Sri.M.V.Thamban, the counsel appearing for the respondent herein/the sole applicant would point out that the said aspect is on the basis of Annexure-R1(a) judgment dated 24.9.2003 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29876 of 2003 in favour of the applicant herein, wherein it has ## **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 18** been held that depending upon the sweeping area, the applicant/petitioner herein is entitled for consolidated amount referred to in GO(P) No.3000/1998/Fin dated 25.11.1998 and that is the relevance of the date 25.11.1998. We also directed earlier that the sole applicant herein to file an affidavit as to the said judgment at Annexure-R1(a) and also should state as to whether any Writ Appeal or Review Petition has been filed as against the said judgment. There is no averment in the affidavit dated 26.10.2021 filed by the respondents herein, before this Court as to whether or not any writ appeal or review petition has been filed as against Annexure-R1(a) judgment, in spite of the specific directions of this Court in para No.3 of the interim order dated 22.10.2021, passed by us, in this O.P. However, on being queried the Registry officials have informally informed us that their search of the data would show that no writ appeal or review petition appears to have been filed as against the judgment dated 24.9.2003 in W.P.(C) No. 29876 of 2003. So, even if, Annexure-R1(a) judgment has been taken as final and conclusive, we fail to understand as to how the issue borne out from Annexure-R1(a) judgment can be of any import or relevance as far as giving of relief in the instant case. The entire cause of action in this case would only **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 19** relation to the entitlement or otherwise of the applicant to get regularization w.e.f 18.6.2001, which is the cut of date mentioned in para No.8 thereof in Annexure-A2 GO. The grievance in relation to Annexure-R1(a) judgment is entirely different and distinct aspect and the same should not have been clubbed in this case by the Tribunal. If, as a matter of fact, Annexure-R1(a) judgment has become final and conclusive and the petitioner has any legally justiciable grievances as regards any such non compliance of the directions therein, the same cannot be mixed up with the present case, as the same is not part of the pleadings and any such right claimed by the petitioner is to be examined separately. That apart, the consolidated amount and arrears of pay thereof, referred to in para 4 of Annexure-R1(a) judgment is only on the basis of GO(P) No.3000/1998/Fin dated 25.11.1998, which has nothing to do Annexure-A2 G.O, which has been issued much later on 25.11.2005. Therefore, these issues should have been kept separate and should not have been the subject matter observations in the impugned verdict at Ext.P2. If the applicant has any right on the basis of Annexure-R1(a) judgment, the same cannot be either re-inforced or taken away merely on the basis of any ## **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 20** observations of the Tribunal at Ext.P2. Hence, to obviate this avoidable confusion, we make it clear that the entitlement of the applicant is for regularization is w.e.f. 18.6.2001 and arrears of pay consequent to such regularization, is to be given w.e.f 18.6.2001. Further, we also note that Ext.P2 verdict rendered by the Tribunal as early as on 2.4.2017, the present OP has been filed before this Court as later as on 20.10.2021. 12. In view of the long and inordinate delay in the matter, and taking note of the fact that the applicant is a Part Time Casual Sweeper, who has been in service since 1989 onwards, and who has been in service for a very long time, it is ordered that the competent authority amongst the petitioners will immediately comply with the directions of the Tribunal in the matter of regularization w.e.f.18.6.2001 and arrears of pay thereof w.e.f.18.6.2001, without any further delay, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The counsel for the respondent herein may forward copies of this judgment to the petitioners herein for necessary information and immediate compliance. 13. The observations and orders of the Tribunal at Ext.P2 will stand modified as above. **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 21** With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand dismissed. sd/- ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** sd/- ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm **OP(KAT) NO. 287 OF 2021 22** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 287/2021** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** Exhibit P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE OA ALONG WITH ANNEXURES **ANNEXURES:** Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, BUILDING SUB DIVISION, HARIPAD Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.501/2005/FIN. DATED 25.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.125/09/AD DATED 4.7.2009 - Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE OF THE KRISHI BHAVAN AT THAMARAKULAM DATED 25.9.2015 - Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.175/2016/AGRICULTURE DATED 14.12.2016 - Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2017 IN TA NO.3781/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL - Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.8.2017 IN OA (EKM)NO.1296/2017 - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.2.2016 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT TO THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF FINANCE TECHNICAL WING