High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-07-14Disposed of with directions to verify sweeping ...

State of Kerala v. P.K. Sarojini and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) 279 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
Mohammed Nias C.P. Thurday, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-14
Court Decision / Holding: OP(KAT) 279 of 2019 disposed of with directions: (i) Vacate the Tribunal’s last direction directing regularisation; (ii) Government to verify the sweeping area for each respondent and decide on regularisation in light of the 2005/2006 Government Orders and related communications; (iii) Pass orders within three months after hearing the petitioners and the Panchayath, after considering objections.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to verify sweeping area and decide on regularisation under government orders within three months; last tribunal direction vacated and replaced with verification process.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Local Self Governments, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director, Directorate of Panchayats, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Director of Panchayat, Pathanamthitta

Respondents

P.K.Sarojini, aged 59 years, W/o Das.K.P., Part-time Sweeper, Puramattam Grama Panchayath, Pathanamthitta District
K.G. Ravi, aged 60 years, S/o Late K.K. Gopal, Part-time Sweeper, Puramattam Grama Panchayath, Pathanamthitta District
Puramattam Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary, Puramattam P.O., Pathanamthitta District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Bijoy Chandran, Government Pleader

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. V.A. Muhammed
• Smt. K.S. Sharmila
• N. Satheesh K. Janardhana Shenoy
• S. Rakhee Priya Carol

Case Synopsis & Summary

The State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, the Director of the Directorate of Panchayats, and the Deputy Director of Panchayats, challenges an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (TA 6168/2012) in OP(KAT) 279 of 2019, which directed the Government to consider regularisation of casual sweepers employed by Puramattam Grama Panchayath. The matter traces to writ petitions by two casual sweepers who were deployed in 1996 and 2001 on daily wages, seeking regularisation under the Panchayats. The Court had earlier relied on Mercy v. State of Kerala (2004) to direct the Panchayat to consider their case in light of government orders issued in 2005 and 2006, which set out the eligibility framework for regularising casual workers, including post creation, area-based criteria, and compliance with the orders. The Tribunal, however, observed that the Deputy Director of Panchayat had already indicated that the sweeping area had been determined, thus compelling the Government to regularise. The State contends this finding is factually incorrect and that regularisation could be sanctioned only after proper verification of the area under the governing orders. The High Court ultimately vacated the Tribunal’s directive to regularise, directing the Government to verify each respondent’s sweeping area, decide on regularisation under the 2005–2006 Orders and related communications, and issue orders within three months after hearing. The decision clarifies that regularisation cannot be assumed merely from prior Panchayat actions without adherence to the governing criteria.

Provisions of Law Cited

Government Order dated 25-11-2005 (GO (P) No. 501/2005/FIN)Government Order dated 8-6-2006GO (P) No. 61/2010/FIN dated 9.2.2010

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Tribunal erred in treating the sweeping area as already finally determined by a competent authority, and that regularisation should be considered strictly within the scope of the 2005/2006 Government Orders, after proper verification of the specified area and eligibility criteria. They submit that the sweeping area could include non-specified zones and that the direction to regularise based on an unverified area was unwarranted.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the Tribunal correctly recognized the need to determine the sweeping area before regularisation and that Government verification is necessary to ensure compliance with the 2005/2006 Government Orders; they argue that regularisation can proceed once the area is verified and posts sanctioned, and that the Government must act within the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mercy v. State of Kerala	2004 (2) KLT 848	Mentioned Only	Cited as a guiding precedent for regularisation in writ petitions but not applied as a binding ratio in the present decision.
W.A. No. 1963/2009	W.A. No. 1963/2009	Mentioned Only	Exhibited for reference; not discussed or distinguished in the judgment.

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 State of Kerala v. P.K. Sarojini and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944** ## **OP(KAT) NO. 279 OF 2019** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 6168/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCALS SELF GOVERNMENTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 P.K.SAROJINI AGED 59 YEARS W/O. DAS.K.P. PART-TIME SWEEPER, PURAMATTAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2 K.G. RAVI, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. LATE K.K. GOPAL, PART-TIME SWEEPER, PURAMATTAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3 PURAMATTAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PURAMATTAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SMT.K.S.SHARMILA, N.SATHEESH K.JANARDHANA SHENOY S.RAKHEE PRIYA CAROL ## **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING** **COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP KAT 279 of 2019** **- 2 -** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The State Government has preferred this O.P. KAT, aggrieved by the order dated 16-07-2018 in T.A. No. 6168 of 2012 of the Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the OP (KAT) are as follows: The applicants before the Tribunal were casual sweepers working in the Puramattom Grama Panchayat. They stated that they had been in continuous service under the grama panchayat from 20-7-1996 and 1-7-2001 respectively, on daily wage basis. They had approached this court through a writ petition seeking regularisation of their services under the Panchayat and consequential benefits. By Ext. P3 judgment in the writ petition filed by the first applicant, the Panchayat was directed to consider the claim of the case of the applicant in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Mercy v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT 848].** A similar writ petition filed by the second applicant was disposed of on similar lines. When the Panchayat did not consider the request favourably, they approached this Court through another writ petition which was transferred to the Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A. 6168/2012. It would appear that **- 3 -** **OP KAT 279 of 2019** the State Government had issued an order dated 25-11-2005, dealing with the regularisation of existing eligible casual workers in future vacancies of sweepers/cleaners in Government Offices. The said Government Order was subsequently made applicable to the casual sweepers/cleaners working in the offices of various Panchayats in the State as well, by the Government order dated 8-6-2006. The latter Government Order clearly indicated that the benefit of regularisation in service under the Panchayats would enure only to those who had been working as casual sweeper/cleaner up to 9-9-2005, and subject to their compliance with the directions in the Government Order dated 25-11-2005. The applicants before the Tribunal, having been appointed in their respective offices under the Panchayat on 20-7-1996 and 1-7-2001 respectively, it was clear that their services could have been considered for regularization in accordance with the Government Orders referred to above. 3. When the matter was being considered by the Tribunal, the Tribunal noticed that the services of the applicants had already been regularised by the Panchayat in question on 11-08-2006. However, taking note of the contention of the Government that the Government had not sanctioned any post to which the said persons could have been regularised, the Tribunal while disposing the O.A., directed the Government to see that necessary steps are taken to regularise the services of the applicants, if the sweeping area of the respondent Panchayat justified the sanctioning of necessary posts. In other words, what the Tribunal did was to take note of **- 4 -** **OP KAT 279 of 2019** the orders of regularisation issued by the Panchayat and then direct the Government to ascertain whether there was compliance with the stipulations in the Government orders referred to above warranting the sanctioning of new post under the Panchayat to accommodate the applicants. While the said course of action adopted by the Tribunal would have sufficed to dispose the cases before the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal went further to find that the Deputy Director of Panchayat, by Ext. P8 order, had found that the sweeping area had already been determined by the competent authority and therefore, the Government had no option but to regularise the services of the applicants. It is against this latter finding, that the State is effectively aggrieved and has preferred OP KAT before us. 4. We heard the learned Government Pleader Sri. Bijoy Chandran for the petitioner and Smt. K.S. Sharmila, for the respondents. 5. The contention of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners is essentially that the finding of the Tribunal that the sweeping area in relation to the respondents/applicants had already been determined by the competent authority is factually incorrect. It is his contention that the stipulations in the Government Orders referred to above clearly mandate that it is only if the sweeping area is 100 square meter in a Panchayat office that a post of part-time contingent sweeper can be sanctioned by the Government, and a daily wage incumbent regularised **- 5 -** **OP KAT 279 of 2019** there to. In the instant case, he points out that the total sweeping area determined in relation to the respondents/applicants is inclusive of the cleaning area of markets, which strictly speaking, cannot be reckoned for the purposes of the Government Orders aforementioned. It is, therefore, his contention that while the Government can take note of the regularisation already granted to the respondents/applicants by the Panchayath concerned, the regularisation of the said respondents/applicants, vis-a-vis the Government can be effected only after the Government have verified whether the respondents/applicants indeed satisfied the requirements with regard to the cleaning area specified under the Government Orders aforesaid. 6. We find force in the said submission of the learned Government Pleader for we have not been shown any material that would justify the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the sweeping area in relation to the respondents/applicants had already been determined finally by the competent authority. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the total sweeping area determined in relation to the respondents/applicants include certain areas which are not expressly covered by the Government orders in question. Thus, we deem it appropriate to allow this OP KAT to the limited extent of vacating the last direction of the Tribunal that requires the Government to take necessary action for regularisation of the service of the respondents/applicants and to complete the said exercise within a period of four months granted by the Tribunal. Instead,we direct the **- 6 -** ## **OP KAT 279 of 2019** Government to complete the exercise of verification of the sweeping area in relation to each of the respondents/applicants and take a decision in the light of the Government Orders of 2005 and 2006 referred above, and thereafter take a decision with regard to regularization of the services of the respondents/applicants. 7. The Government shall pass orders as aforesaid within a period of three months after hearing the petitioners and the Panchayath, and considering their objections, if any, to the proposals of the Government, The OP KAT is disposed of as above. **Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P JUDGE** **/true copy/** _ani/_ **- 7 -** **OP KAT 279 of 2019** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 279/2019** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1 TA|TRUE COPY OF T.A. NO. 6168/2012 ALONG| ||WITH EXHIBITS.| |EXHIBIT P TA1|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR| ||CREATION OF POST OF PART TIME CONTINGENT| ||SWEEPER SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P1 TA1 A|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR| ||CREATION OF POST PART TIME CONTINGENT| ||SWEEPER SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P1 TA2|TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.| ||2923/H3/99/LAD DATED 13.5.1999| |EXHIBIT P1 TA3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.8.2004| ||IN WPC 22848/08 BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT| ||OF KERALA| |EXHIBIT P1 TA4|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||21.11.2005 IN WPC NO. 29654/05 BY THE| ||HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.| |EXHIBIT P1 TA5|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.9.2005| ||IN WPC NO. 29899/05 BY THE HONBLE HIGH| ||COURT OF KERALA.| |EXHIBIT P TA6|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.| ||6438/H2/06/LSGD DATED 6.5.2006| |EXHIBIT P TA 7|TRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO. 501/2005/FIN| ||DATED 25.11.2005| |EXHIBIT P TA 8|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E5/5601/05| ||DATED 30.5.2006| |EXHIBIT P1 TA1 P8|TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO. X DATED| |A|1.6.2006 TAKEN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P1 TA9|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C5.231/06/(1)| ||DATED 11.8.2006| |EXHIBIT P2 TA|TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED| ||BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH| ||EXHIBIT.| |EXHIBIT P2 TA R4 A|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E3/830/2008| ||(1) DATED 3.11.2008 OF THE DEPUTY| ||DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH ADDRESSED TO THE| ||SECRETARY, PURAMATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.| |EXHIBIT P3 TA|TRUE COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY| **- 8 -** ## **OP KAT 279 of 2019** THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT P3 TA, P10 TRUE COPY OF THE W.A. NO. 1963/2009 BY JUDGMENT DATED 18.8.2010 EXHIBIT P3 TA P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 884/2011/LSGD DATED 26.3.2011 EXHIBIT P4 TA TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FIELD ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST PETITIONER ON 4.10.2017 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P5 TA TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 16.7.2018 IN TRANSFER APPLICATION NO. 6168/2012 EXHIBIT P6 TA TRUE COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD BUILDING SECTION, VENNIKULAM. EXHIBIT P7 TA TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO. 61/2010/FIND DATED 9.2.2010