High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2021-02-01Original Petition dismissed; Tribunal’s order u...

OP(KAT) No.401/2020

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No. 401/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
T.R. Ravi
Judgment Date: 2021-02-01
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed; Tribunal's order dated 6.9.2018 in OA 1104/2016 upheld with modification. The court granted six weeks from receipt of a certified copy to comply with the Tribunal’s directions and awarded costs to the parties.
Final Disposition: Original Petition dismissed; Tribunal’s order upheld with modification; time for compliance 6 weeks; costs awarded.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramla Beegum, W/o Nazeer, Part Time Casual Sweeper, PWD Rest House, Edavana, Manjeri, Malappuram

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695001
The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695014
The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Building Sub Division, Manjeri, Malappuram, PIN-676121
The Assistant Engineer, PWD Building Section, Manjeri, Malappuram, PIN-676121

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. M.V. Thamban

Counsels for Respondents

• Sr. Government Pleader Smt. B. Vinod

Case Synopsis & Summary

OP(KAT) No.401 of 2020, a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala (Justices Alexander Thomas and T.R. Ravi) deals with the entitlement of Ramla Beegum, a part-time casual sweeper at the PWD Rest House, Edavanna, Manjeri, to regularisation under government schemes. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal had directed regularisation of the respondent, invoking Mercy v. State of Kerala (2004) and the ensuing policy framework, including GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin (25.11.2005) and later GO(P) No.61/2010/Fin (9.2.2010). The petitioners, State of Kerala and PWD officials, challenged the Tribunal’s order on grounds that the respondent lacked continuous service and that regularisation was governed by the policy conditions requiring post-creation or pre-2010 eligibility. The Tribunal’s finding that the respondent had been in service since 2000 and that the sweeping area exceeded 450 m2 was upheld in substance by the High Court, which declined interference. However, the Court granted six weeks from receipt of a certified copy to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, and dismissed the petition with costs. The judgment reiterates Mercy’s framework within the 2005–2010 GO policies and emphasizes judicial deference to the Tribunal’s interpretation of regularisation schemes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 227 of the Constitution of IndiaGO(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005GO(P) No.61/2010/Fin dated 09.02.2010

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the respondent did not have continuous service and that regularisation under the Mercy framework and the GO policies could not be extended to her without a sanctioned post or meeting the post-creation eligibility criteria. They argued that the sweeping area, though substantial, did not by itself compel regularisation, and pointed to Rubeena’s intermittent engagement as undermining a clear entitlement. They further submitted that the policy requires compliance with the pre-conditions set out in GO 501/2005 and that the 2010 modification limited the benefit to those who were appointed before 25.11.2005.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued for regularisation under the Mercy framework, supported by GO 501/2005 and GO 61/2010, asserting that she served as a Part-Time Casual Sweeper from 2000 with a sweeping area exceeding 450 m2 and that a sanctioned post existed. They relied on the Tribunal’s findings and urged the court not to disturb a well-reasoned order, noting that regularisation has been consistently envisaged for eligible casual sweepers and that the respondent should receive monetary and service benefits under the policy.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mercy v. State of Kerala	2004 (2) KLT 848	Positive	Cited as the authority guiding the regularisation framework for casual/sweepers, whose directions influenced the GO policy regime.
State of Kerala and others v. M.M.Mercy and others	W.A.No.1863 of 2004	Positive	Division Bench confirmed Mercy’s judgment, reinforcing the regularisation approach adopted in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP(KAT) No.401/2020 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

OP(KAT)No.401/2020 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942** **OP(KAT).No.401 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER DT.6.9.2018 IN OA (EKM) 1104/2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** - **2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING SUB DIVISION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM,PIN-676 121.** - **4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING SECTION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 121.** ## **BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI B.VINOD** OP(KAT)No.401/2020 2 ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE OA:** **RAMLA BEEGUM, AGED 39 YEARS W/O NAZEER, PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, PWD REST HOUSE, EDAVANA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. PIN-676 541, RESIDING AT MOORKAN HOUSE, KALLUDUMPU, EDAVANA P.O.MANJERI, MALAPPURAM,PIN-676 121.** **ADV. SRI M.V.THAMBAN** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(KAT)No.401/2020 3 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R. RAVI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------** ## **O.P.(KAT) No. 401 of 2020** [ _Arising out of order dated 06.09.2018 in O.A.(Ekm) No.1104 of 2016 of KAT, Tvm_ ] **--------------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 1[st] day of February, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **T.R. RAVI, J.** The original petition has been filed by the State of Kerala and its officers/authorities, challenging the order dated 6.9.2018 in O.A. (EKM)No.1104 of 2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The petitioners were the respondents before the Tribunal and the respondent was the applicant. 2. The issue relates to entitlement of the respondent to be regularised in service as a Part Time Sweeper. Pursuant to directions issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court in its judgment in **Mercy** **v. State of Kerala** reported in [2004 (2) KLT 848], confirmed by a Division Bench in its judgment dated 12.08.2005 in **State of Kerala and others v. M.M.Mercy and others (W.A.No.1863 of 2004 and connected cases** ), the State Government had issued GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005, introducing a scheme to govern OP(KAT)No.401/2020 4 the cases of regularisation of existing eligible casual sweepers and regarding appointments to future vacancies. Paragraph 8 of the above Government order deals with regularisation of the existing casual sweepers. As per the Government order, the sweeping area has to be calculated in accordance with the guidelines given in the appendix, the measurement being carried out by the PWD officials after notice to the incumbent casual sweeper and in his presence. Wherever the sweeping area exceeds 100 M[2] and if there is no post of Part Time Sweeper sanctioned for the office in question, but there is a casual sweeper being engaged, steps are to be taken for creation of a post of part time contingent sweeper. The posts are to be created with effect from the date of appointment of the incumbent as casual sweeper or from 18.6.2001 (i.e., three years preceding the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in **Mercy v. State of Kerala** [2004 (2) KLT 848]), whichever is later. 3. The Government thereafter issued G.O.(P)No.61/2010/Fin dated 09.02.2010 modifying the earlier order dated 25.11.2005. It was ordered that all existing sweepers other than casual sweepers, irrespective of the mode of appointment, shall also be entitled for regularisation based on the sweeping area, provided that their appointments were made on or before the issuance of the Government OP(KAT)No.401/2020 5 order dated 25.11.2005. 4. The respondent herein was being engaged as part-time casual sweeper on fixed remuneration with effect from 1.1.2000 at the PWD Rest House, Edavanna, Manjeri. The sweeping area is more than 450 m² as can be seen from Annexure A3. Ext.R1(a) letter dated 22.6.2010 from the Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Division, Malappuram to the Chief Engineer shows that there is a sanctioned post of part time sweeper in the PWD Rest House. The letter further requests for necessary action regarding regularisation of the respondent. It was contended by the petitioners that the respondent did not have continuous service and that one Rubeena was also being engaged as casual sweeper. The respondent had replied to the said allegation stating that Rubeena was her sister and she had never been engaged in the PWD Rest House and that it was a practice to show the names of others to avoid a claim of continuous service. The Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioners and held that the respondent was entitled to regularisation since she was in service with effect from the year 2000 and directed the 1[st] petitioner to consider the proposal sent by the Executive Engineer for regularisation of the respondent and pass orders extending the benefits as provided in the Government order dated 25.11.2005 and to grant the monetary benefits due to the OP(KAT)No.401/2020 6 respondent within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Tribunal after the passage of 2 years of its issuance. 5. Before this Court also, the petitioners have reiterated the contentions taken before the Tribunal. We do not find any legal reason to interfere with the well considered order issued by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the 1[st] respondent was being engaged against a sanctioned post from 1.1.2000 onwards. The sweeping area is admittedly more than 450 sq.mts. Except for the objection regarding the engagement of one Rubeena for an intermittent period, which has been denied and sufficiently explained by the 1[st] respondent, there can be no reason for refusing the benefit of regularisation to the 1[st] respondent. No grounds have been made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of the extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The time granted by the Tribunal for compliance with the directions issued are long over. In the above circumstances, we deem it fit to grant the petitioners a further time of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in its order dated 6.9.2018 in O.A.(EKM)No.1104 of 2016. With the above modification of the order of the Tribunal, the OP(KAT)No.401/2020 7 original petition is dismissed. The parties will suffer their respective costs. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Sd/- **T.R. RAVI, JUDGE** dsn OP(KAT)No.401/2020 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A (EKM) NO 1104/2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE BEFORE THE KERLA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL** - **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.5.2013 OF ONE AISHABI** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BUILDING SECTION) OFFICE AT MANJERI.** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH AND SWEEPING AREA CALCULATION OF THE PWD REST HOUSE EDAVANA** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO 501/2005/FIN DATED 25.11.2005** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6.9.2018 IN O.A (EKM) 1104/2016** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE SECOND PETITIONER ON 16.6.2017** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST PETITIONER ON 21.5.2018** - **ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO E3-188/2003 DATED 22.6.2010** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FIELD BY THE RESPONDENT ON 4.6.2018** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A NO 839/2020 AND M.A NO 840/2020 IN OA 1104/2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT ON 15.6.2020** - **ANNEXURE M.A.1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.9.18**