State of Kerala & Ors. v A. Umaifa Lakshmi Veedu & Tholicode Grama Panchayat

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas, J.
Viju Abraham, J.
Judgment Date: 2021-11-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Appeal dismissed; directions of the learned Single Judge to be complied with, including payment of monetary benefits within two months; annexure of related judgments to facility reference.
Final Disposition: Writ Appeal dismissed; directions to comply with Single Judge’s order within two months; monetary benefits to be paid.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THIRUVANANTHURAM-695033
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033

Respondents

A.UMAIFA LAKSHMI VEEDU
THOLICODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THOLICODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THOLICODE P O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Saigi Jacob Palatty, Sr. Govt. Pleader

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri B. Reghunathan
• Sri M. Dinesh
• Sri M. Salim
• Sri V. M. Jacob

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Writ Appeal, WA No.253 of 2021, arises from a judgment dated 31 May 2019 in WP(C) No.11261 of 2015. The core issue concerns the entitlement of the first respondent (a part-time sweeper) to regularisation in service. The appellants—the State of Kerala along with three government officers—challenged the Single Judge’s directions issued in 2019 directing regularisation under a scheme established by GO(501)/2005 (Fin) of 25 November 2005 and later modified by GO(61)/2010 (Fin) of 9 February 2010. The 2005 order provided that regularisation of casual sweepers would be anchored to sweeping area measurements, with posts created where the area exceeded 100 sq.m and where a post did not sanction, with retroactive effect from appointment as casual sweeper or from 18.06.2001, whichever later. The 2010 amendment expanded eligibility to existing sweepers, subject to conditions. The Court tracks Mercy v. State of Kerala (2004) and its Division Bench affirmation (W.A.No.1863 of 2004) as the doctrinal basis for regularisation, and notes a controlling Division Bench decision in O.P(KAT) No.382/2020 and related judgments. The Court ultimately dismisses the appeal, holding that the issue has been resolved against the State in favor of the writ petitioner, and directs compliance with the learned Single Judge’s directions within two months, including monetary benefits.

Provisions of Law Cited

GO(P) No.501/2005/Fin dated 25.11.2005GO(P)/GO(P) No.61/2010/Fin dated 09.02.2010

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that regularisation requires sanctioned posts and post creation; performance of sweeping-area based regularisation relies on GO 501/2005 and GO 61/2010; there may be no post sanctioned for the office in question; the State urges limited compliance and adherence to budgetary and procedural constraints.

Contentions of Respondents

Writ petitioner contends that the 1st respondent is entitled to regularisation under the specified Go schemes, and that Mercy’s jurisprudence supports regularisation when area thresholds and eligibility criteria are met; Tholicode Panchayat argues for the extension and applicability of the regularisation scheme to existing casual sweepers.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mercy v. State of Kerala	2004 (2) KLT 848	Positive	Cited as the genesis of the regularisation framework and the basis for directions subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench.
State of Kerala & Ors. v. M.M.Mercy & Ors.	W.A.No.1863 of 2004	Positive	Confirmed Mercy’s directions; used to support ongoing regularisation scheme.
O.P(KAT) No.382/2020	O.P(KAT) No.382/2020	Positive	Division Bench decision that decided the same issue in favour of the writ petitioner and informs the present decision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943** **WA NO. 253 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2019 IN WP(C) 11261/2015 OF HIGH** **COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN W.P(C):** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** - **3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C):** **1 A.UMAIFA LAKSHMI VEEDU, AGED 47 YEARS, 4TH MILE, PARANDODE, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542(PART-TIME SWEEPER, THOLICODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541.)** - **2 THOLICODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THOLICODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THOLICODE P O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541.** **BY ADVS. B.RAGHUNATHAN SHRI.M.DINESH M.SALIM V.M.JACOB** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No.253 of 2021 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.** ## **=========================================** ## **W.A No.253 of 2021** [ _arising out of the judgment dated 31.05.2019 in W.P(C) No.11261/2015_ ] **=========================================** Dated this the 18[th] day of November, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas, J.** Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in the W.A/respondents 1 to 3 in the W.P(C), Sri.B.Reghunathan, learned counsel appearing for R1 in the W.A/writ petitioner and Sri.M.Dinesh, learned Standing Counsel for Tholicode Grama Panchayat appearing for R2 in the W.A/R4 in the W.P(C). 2. The issue relates to entitlement of the 1[st] respondent in the W.A (writ petitioner to be regularized in service as Part-Time Sweeper). It is seen that the impugned judgment in this case rendered by the learned Single Judge on 31.05.2019 is in relation to three W.P(C)s, including the present one and another W.P(C), viz. W.P(C) No.11258/2015. Writ Appeal No.292/2021 filed by the State to impugn the said judgment in W.P(C) No.11258/2015 has already been dismissed by this Court on 17.03.2021. This was on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in a similar case in O.P(KAT) W.A No.253 of 2021 3 No.382/2021 by the dismissal of that O.P as per judgment of the Division Bench on 09.03.2021. The judgment dated 17.03.2021 in W.A No.292/2021 arising out of judgment dated 31.05.2019 in W.P(C) No.11258/2015, from para.2 onwards read as follows : _“2. The issue relates to entitlement of the first respondent to be regularised in service as a Part Time Sweeper. Pursuant to the directions issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment in Mercy v. State of Kerala reported in [2004 (2) KLT 848], confirmed by a Division Bench in the judgment dated 12.08.2005 in State of Kerala & Ors. v. M.M.Mercy & Ors. (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 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 sq.mtrs. 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 order dated 25.11.2005._ _4. After hearing both sides, it appears that the issue raised in this case is already decided against the appellant State and in favour of the Writ Petitioner employee as per the judgment rendered by this Court on 9.3.2021 in O.P.(KAT) No.382 of 2020. Hence this appeal is only to be dismissed in view of the reasonings and conclusions already arrived at by this Court in the judgment dated 9.3.2021 in O.P.(KAT) No.382 of 2020. However, we grant six weeks’ time to the appellants to comply with the directions issued by the learned Singe Judge as per the impugned judgment dated 31.5.2019 in W.P. (C) No.11258 of 2015. For the sake of clarity and easy reference, it is ordered that the Registry shall place a copy of the judgment dated 9.3.2021 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.382 of 2020 as annexure to this judgment._ _With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand dismissed.”_ W.A No.253 of 2021 4 3. Accordingly, it is ordered that the matter in issue is covered in favour of the 1[st] respondent in the W.A/writ petitioner and against the appellants, as per the judgment rendered by this Court on 17.03.2021 in W.A No.292/2021 as well as the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 09.03.2021 in O.P(KAT) No.382/2020. For the sake of clarity and easy reference, it is ordered that the Registry shall place a copy of the judgment dated 09.03.2021 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in O.P(KAT) No.382/2020 as annexure to this judgment. Accordingly, the above Writ Appeal is only to be rejected. However, the appellants may ensure that the directions of the learned Single Judge, as per the impugned judgment in this case may be complied with and to pay monetary benefits thereof, without any further delay, at any rate, within an outer time limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand dismissed. ## **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** vgd