State of Kerala & Others v. Seena K.T.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2020-01-15
Court Decision / Holding: Original petition dismissed; no costs.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala
Director of Social Justice, Government of Kerala
Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Kozhikode Rural

Respondents

Seena K.T.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Antony Mukkath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P.M. Pareeth

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case concerns the State of Kerala challenging an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (OA 328/2019) directing consideration of the third respondent’s proposal to sanction a regular post of Part-time Contingent Sweeper and to regularise the applicant’s service as a Part-time Sweeper in the office of the third respondent. The applicant had been engaged since 1 September 2000. After Mercy v. State of Kerala, the Government issued GO (P) 501/2005 prescribing guidelines for regularisation of existing eligible casual sweepers and appointments against future vacancies where the office’s sweeping area exceeds 100 sq m. Under these guidelines, if the area exceeds 100 sq m and no post exists, the head of the office should request creation of a Part-time Contingent Sweeper; the post would be created from the incumbent’s appointment date or from 18.6.2001, whichever is later. The third respondent’s office measured 153.95 sq m, and repeated proposals for creating a post and regularising the applicant were submitted but not acted upon; the applicant herself filed OA 328/2019. The Tribunal held the Government’s non-consideration illegal and directed implementation of the GO and retention of the applicant with regularisation from 18.6.2001. The State challenged, contending the office is in a rented building, that GO 501/2005 does not apply, and that the Tribunal lacked power to order post creation, citing the Umadevi doctrine. The High Court upheld the Tribunal, clarifying that GO 501/2005 is a one-time measure and that denying relief would unjustly deprive a long-delayed beneficiary. The petition was dismissed with no costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Umadevi doctrine: Regularisation of service via one-time measure (State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the Tribunal exceeded its powers by directing the creation of a post and that regularisation would be barred by the Umadevi principle; GO 501/2005 is a valid one-time measure; non-consideration of the proposal by the Government is illegal given the office area exceeding 100 sq m; a rented premises should not defeat the GO’s applicability and the Government’s inaction constitutes denial of relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that repeated proposals for regularisation were not acted upon due to administrative reasons; GO 501/2005 regularises only specified categories and cannot be extended to permanent regularisation; the Tribunal lacks power to order post creation; reliance on the Umadevi principle would thwart a one-time remedial measure.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mercy v. State of Kerala	2004 (2) KLT 848	Positive	Cited as the basis for issuing GO 501/2005 prescribing regularisation guidelines following the court’s decision.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi	AIR 2006 SC 1806	Distinguished	Not applied to bar the GO-based one-time regularisation in this case; court treats GO 501/2005 as a permissible remedial measure.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 25TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **OP(KAT).No.421 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 328/2019 DATED 01-03-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003. 2 DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 CHILD EVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS, KOZHIKODE RURAL, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 631.** ## **BY SR.G P SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **SEENA K.T., AGED 39 YEARS D/O.KUTTAYI, PART TIME SWEEPER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS, KOZHIKODE RURAL, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 631.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY** **HEARD ON 15-01-2020, THE COURT ON 15-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.KAT 421 of 2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **V.G.Arun, J.** The State of Kerala and its officers are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, directing consideration of the third respondent's proposal for sanction of a regular post of Part-time Sweeper in the office of the third respondent and the applicant's claim for regularisation of her service as Part-time Sweeper in that post. The parties are referred to as per their status in the original application. 2. The following facts are not in dispute:- The applicant was engaged as casual Part-time Sweeper in the office of the third respondent from 1.9.2000 onwards. The Government had, pursuant to the decision of this Court in Mercy v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT 848], issued G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 prescribing the O.P.KAT 421 of 2019 3 guidelines for regularisation of existing eligible casual sweepers and appointments against future arising vacancies of sweepers/cleaners in Government offices. As per the guidelines, if on measurement the sweeping area of a Government office is seen to exceed 100 Sq.Mtrs, and a casual Part-time Sweeper is working in that office and no post of Part-time Sweeper has been sanctioned, the Head of the Office shall immediately take up the matter with the Government for creation of a post of Part-time Contingent Sweeper. On such request, the post shall be created with effect from the date of appointment of the incumbent as casual sweeper or from 18.6.2001, whichever is later. In accordance with the guidelines, the sweeping area of the third respondent's office was measured and found to be 153.95 Sq.Mtrs. Accordingly, proposal was submitted repeatedly for sanctioning the post of Part-time Sweeper and to regularise the service of the O.P.KAT 421 of 2019 4 applicant. The repeated proposals did not evoke any response from the Government, and therefore the applicant herself submitted a request, which also met with the same fate. Thereupon, the original application was filed. 3. The sole contention raised before the Tribunal by the officials respondents, as discernible from the impugned order, was that the Government had, by communication dated 28.12.2018, returned the proposal submitted by the third respondent, expressing inability to consider the proposal for the time being and directing to engage a casual sweeper on contract with the local Kudumbasree unit. 4. By the impugned order, the Tribunal found the nonconsideration of the proposal to be illegal and directed the first respondent to take back the proposal and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. It was made clear that the applicant shall be retained in the service O.P.KAT 421 of 2019 5 of the third respondent and regularisation will have to take effect from 18.6.2001, as stipulated in paragraph 8 of G.O.(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005. 5. The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that the office of the third respondent was functioning in a rented building and therefore, the sanction of post and claim for regularisation of the applicant does not fall within the parameters set out in G.O.(P) No.501/2005. The intention of the Government in issuing G.O.(P) No.501/2005 being to regularise the service of Part-time Sweepers working in Government offices with sweeping area of more than 100 Sq.Mtrs, there cannot be any such distinction in G.O.(P) No.501/2005, lest it would amount to discrimination and unreasonable classification. Further it is pertinent that for the last decade and a half the office is being continued in the rented premises and even if it is a shifted to an owned O.P.KAT 421 of 2019 6 premises there is no reason stated as to why it should be of lesser area. 6. The other ground is that the Tribunal does not have the power to issue a positive direction for creation of post and that the regularisation of the applicant's service would be against the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [AIR 2006 SC 1806]. These contentions are without substance for the reason that the Tribunal has only directed implementation of the Government order issued as a one-time measure for regularising the services of Part-time Sweeper engaged in Government office as on 25.11.2005. The recalcitrance on the part of the Government to consider the proposal for regularisation of the applicant's service, in terms of the Government order, cannot be raised as a ground to deny the benefit legitimately due to the applicant. It is disheartening to O.P.KAT 421 of 2019 7 note that such unwarranted litigation is being pursued, expending amounts from the public exchequer, with the sole intention of denying the benefit legitimately due to a Part-time Sweeper working on paltry wages for the past many years. We are forced to make this observation considering the number of such specious original petitions being filed by the Government. In the result, the original petition is dismissed. We refrain from awarding costs hoping that better wisdom will prevail. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/JUDGE** **V.G.ARUN** Scl/15.1.2020 xxx O.P.KAT 421 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF O.A.(EKM) NO.328/2019 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.** - **EXHIBIT P1(A1) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(P) NO.501/2005/FIN DATED 25/11/2005.** **EXHIBIT P1(A2)** - **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/01/2019 ALONG WITH THE SWEEPING AREA CALCULATION AND CERTIFICATE OF SWEEPING AREA.** **EXHIBIT P1(A3)** - **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2019 IN OA(EKM) 328/2019.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(A)** **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY A SIMILARLY PLACED PERSON TO THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER THALASSERY.** - **EXHIBIT R1(B)** **A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER THALASSERY.**