Vasanthakumari K.B. v. State of Kerala, Kerala State Housing Board, Housing Commissioner and Regional Engineer

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 19616 OF 2022** **PETITIONER:** **VASANTHAKUMARI K.B. AGED 50 YEARS W/O. SANTHOSH P.K., PART TIME CASUAL SWEEPER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REVENUE TOWER, 5TH FLOOR, KOCHI-682011 RESIDING AT PUTHENKARIYIL HOUSE, PEREEKAD, EROOR WEST P.O, TRIPUNITHURA- 682306.** **BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING BOARD SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 HOUSING COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 REGIONAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REVENUE TOWER, 5TH FLOOR, KOCHI-682011.** **BY ADVS. T.K.SAJEEV FOR R2 TO R4 ANIMA. M GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 2 : ## **J U D G M E N T** _**Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2023**_ The petitioner, who is working as a Part-Time Casual Sweeper in the Regional Office of the Housing Board in Kochi on contract basis from 02.01.2013, filed the writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P6 Government Order and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be regularised with all service benefits in the post of Part-Time Casual Sweeper in the office of the 4[th] respondent from the initial date of appointment i.e., 01.05.2011 or atleast from 30.09.2011. The petitioner sought for an order regularising service of the petitioner with all service benefits in the post of Part-Time Casual Sweeper. 2. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Part-Time Casual Sweeper since the year 20112012. The appointment of the petitioner was on a contract basis for a period of one year. After every year, there will be WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 3 : an artificial break and the petitioner's contract will be renewed. The contract was so renewed from time to time. The last renewal was on January, 2022 and the petitioner's tenure was to expire on 21.01.2023. 3. As the petitioner has completed 10 years service, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking regularisation. After the submission of the representation, when the petitioner filed this writ petition, the service of the petitioner was terminated. 4. The petitioner would submit that the termination of the petitioner's service by non-renewal of contract was as a vindictive measure for approaching this Court for regularisation of the service. 5. The petitioner would further urge that the petitioner's right to get regularisation has the support of paragraph 53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**State of Karnataka v. Umadevi** [(2006) 4 SCC 1]_ . 6. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. The Standing Counsel submitted that the WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 4 : petitioner was being appointed as Part-Time Casual Sweeper on a contract basis for a period of one year. Such contract was renewed every year. 7. The respondents submitted that the Managing Committee of Revenue Tower, Ernakulam, where the office of the Housing Board is functioning, has appointed five Sweepers and a Supervisor on contract basis for House Keeping of Revenue Tower Building wherein the Regional Office is functioning. These cleaning staff have been doing cleaning works in the Regional Office of the Kerala State Housing Board also. The Board has no additional financial liability for the same. The working time of the petitioner was only half an hour in the morning and the cleaning staff were doing cleaning work of the Kerala State Housing Board. Moreover, the Controlling Officer of Kochi Regional Office i.e., the Regional Engineer, has reported that the cleaning staff appointed by Managing Committee of Revenue Tower Building are available throughout the entire office hours and their work seems to be very neat and clean. It was also WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 5 : reported that the petitioner was doing only inside cleaning of the Regional Office and her service is not essential in the Regional Office. It was considering the afore circumstances and taking into account the financial limitations of the Board that the Board decided to disengage the petitioner. The disengagement of the petitioner after the expiry of the term of the last contract cannot be found fault with, contended the counsel for the respondents. 8. The counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently opposed the stand taken by the 2[nd] respondent. It was pointed out that the petitioner, who is coming from a backward social strata, has been working as a Part-Time Sweeper since the year 2011-2012. In view of the exceptions provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in _**Umadevi**_ (supra), after rendering 10 years service, the petitioner could have claimed for regularisation of her service. When the petitioner approached this Court, her services was terminated as a vindictive measure for seeking regularisation. WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 6 : 9. The counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the respondents have not disclosed as to from which date the Revenue Tower Managing Committee has been engaging the staff for House Keeping. It was further pointed out that the petitioner having 10 years service should have been preferred by the respondents over any other Part-Time Sweeper / House Keeping Worker. If the Managing Committee wanted to engage Part-Time Sweepers, then the petitioner should have been retained taking into consideration the long years of service rendered by the petitioner. 10. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to work for longer hours as a Part-Time Sweeper, if that is one of the reasons for dispensing with her services. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1[st] respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 7 : 12. From the pleadings, it is evident that the petitioner has been working as Part-Time Sweeper atleast from the year 2012. The petitioner's services were terminated after every year, entering into new contract. The period of the last contract of the petitioner expired on 21.01.2023. 13. When the petitioner approached this Court seeking orders of regularisation, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that this is as a vindictive measure for approaching this Court seeking regularisation. 14. Be that as it may, I find that the specific stand taken by respondents 2 to 4 is that the Managing Committee of Revenue Tower has engaged House Keeping staff, who are taking care of cleaning of the entire building. In contrast to the half an hour engagement of the petitioner as a PartTime Sweeper, the House Keeping staff retained by the Managing Committee of the Revenue Tower are available round the clock. It is therefore a better service. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 8 : decision of respondents 2 to 4 to stop the engagement of the petitioner as a Part-Time Sweeper and accepting the service rendered by the Managing Committee of Revenue Tower. 15. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the decision of respondents 2 to 4 to avail the services of the House Keeping staff engaged by the Managing Committee of Revenue Tower cannot be found fault with. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioner at this stage. However, if respondents 2 to 4 proposes to engage any Part-Time Casual Sweeper in future, the petitioner shall be given preference in the matter of such appointments taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has rendered nearly 10 years of service as Part-Time Sweeper. **Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE** sss WP(C) No.19616 of 2022 : 9 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19616/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER ON 02.01.2013. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S BANK PASSBOOK. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.501/2005/FIN DATED 25.11.2005. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P)NO. 412/2011/FIN DATED 30.09.2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2019 IN WP(C) NO. 30791/2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO.76/2021/HSG DATED 17/12/2021. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 42121/2018 DATED 08.01.2020.** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO. 412/2011/FIN DATED 30.09.2011**