Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2021
O.P.(KAT) No.179 of 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.179 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OA 2249/2018 DATED 19-11-2019 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE,
KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 506.
BY SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
O.P.(KAT) No.179 of 2020 2
RESPONDENT/S:
JENCY.K.L
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O.BIJU PHILIP, WORKING AS CASUAL SWEEPER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, POOYAPPALLY, KOTTARAKKARA
TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN-691 739,
RESIDING AT BINISH VILLA, MATHRA P.O.,
PUNALUR, PIN-6991 333,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.K.TRESA RANI GEORGE
BY ADV. SRI.P.ADAM AMBROSE
BY ADV. SRI.ANSELM B.VALIATHARAYIL
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT) No.179 of 2020 3
ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R. RAVI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT) No.179 of 2020
[Arising out of order dated 19.11.2019 in
O.A.No.2249/2018 of the KAT, Tvm.
Bench]
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
T.R.RAVI, J.
The original petition has been filed challenging order dated
19.11.2019 in O.A.No.2249 of 2018 of the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (Tribunal for short), by respondents 1
to 4 who are the State and its officers/authorities. The applicant is
the respondent in the original petition.
2. The respondent was working as a casual sweeper from
1997 onwards in the Pooyappally Village Office in Kollam district.
The Village Office was originally having sweeping area of less than
100 M2. The sweeping area increased to 192.39 M 2 later. The
respondent had filed W.P(C)No.6579 of 2006 before this Court
seeking regular monthly salary and regularisation of service, which
was disposed of by judgment dated 30.08.2006, holding that the
respondent's case will be governed by the Government order G.O.
(P)No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005. Even though the sweeping
area had thereafter increased to more than 100 M 2 the benefit of the
Government order dated 25.11.2005 was not extended to the
respondent. The respondent had submitted a representation on
23.2.2018 and had approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.253 of
2018, which was disposed of by Annexure A1 judgment dated
5.3.2018, directing the 1st respondent therein to consider and pass
orders on the representation in accordance with law. In Annexure A1,
the Tribunal specifically held that the respondent is entitled to
regularisation at least from the date on which the sweeping area
exceeded 100 M2.
3. The 1st respondent on 28.7.2018 issued Annexure A2
order. It is seen from Annexure A2 order that the sweeping area
became 101.38 M2 on 18.2.2011 and 129.69 M2 on 6.4.2018.
However, the request for regularisation was rejected finding that only
such persons, who were working as part-time sweepers on
25.11.2005, and sweeping an area of more than 100 M 2 as on that
day, are eligible for the benefit of regularisation. The reasoning in the
order is that a subsequent increase in the sweeping area would not
entitle a part-time sweeper for regularisation. The respondent had
produced Annexure A6 report dated 16.9.2017 from the Village
Officer, Pooyappilly to the Tahsildar, Kottarakkara, dealing with the
claim of the respondent for regularisation. It is stated in the report
that the respondent was working in the office with effect from
1.8.2000 and that as per the certificate No.D4-983/86 dated
23.7.2003 issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD (Buildings
Division), Kottarakkara, the sweeping area was 192.39 M 2. A copy of
the certificate was also produced as Annexure A7. The said certificate
was issued before the Government order dated 25.11.2005 and it is
not clear whether the measurement was as per the guidelines
contained in the Government order dated 25.11.2005. However, from
Annexure A2 it is evident that the sweeping area has exceeded 100 M 2
at least in 2010, when modifications were made to the Village Office.
4. The Tribunal considered the claim of the respondent and,
based on Annexures A2 and Annexure A7, found that the sweeping
area has exceeded 100 M2 in 2010. The Tribunal hence directed the
petitioners to pass orders regularising the respondent with effect
from the eligible date in 2010 and to grant her all consequential
benefits. The original petition is filed challenging the above order of
the Tribunal.
5. The main ground which has been put forth in the original
petition is that neither the Government order
GO(P)No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 nor the subsequent order
G.O.(P)No.61/2010/Fin. dated 09.2.2010 postulate that existing
sweepers continuing in offices with less than 100 M 2 of sweeping area
will be entitled to get regularisation in service as and when the
sweeping area increases beyond 100 M2. This Court has considered
similar issues in several cases and has held that in cases of existing
casual sweepers who were sweeping area less than 100 M 2 and where
the sweeping area increased subsequent to the issuance of G.O.(P)
No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005, they were entitled to be
regularised with effect from the date on which the sweeping area
exceeded 100 M2 .
6. In the judgment dated 18.01.2019 in O.P.(KAT) No.26 of
2019, a Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph 6 as follows:-
"6. ..... .... Therefore, essential question is whether,
solely because the sweeping area was below 100 sq.m till 2014,
the respondent could hold it out to be a reason to deprive the
benefit flowing from the said G.O. dated 25.11.2005, to the
petitioner. When the admitted position is that subsequent to
the renovation of the office in question there occurred an
increase in the sweeping area and thereby it became 124.164
sq.m, cannot be ignored while considering that question. The
Tribunal after considering the rival contentions had arrived at
the conclusion that it could not be assigned as a reason for not
granting the benefit to the petitioner. Evidently, it was based
on such consideration that the Tribunal found the respondent
eligible for regularisation in terms of the said G.O dated
25.11.2005 and also the benefit of the subsequent G.O(P)No.61
of 2010 dated 9.2.2010. It is an interpretation beneficial to the
employee and it cannot be taken as a perverse or absurd
interpretation considering the object behind issuance of the
aforesaid Government Orders. We do not find any reason to
hold that the Tribunal had erred in arriving such a conclusion.
We also got no hesitation to hold that the said conclusion
nothing but the culmination of the rightful consideration. .....
...."
7. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning
adopted in the above said judgment by the Division Bench. In the
case on hand also, admittedly, the respondent was being engaged
from the year 1996-97 continuously and the sweeping area was less
than 100 M2 on 25.11.2005. The sweeping area has admittedly
increased subsequently. It was in the above circumstances that the
Tribunal had directed the regularisation of the respondent with effect
from the eligible date in 2010. We do not find any reason to interfere
with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had granted
three months time to comply with the directions issued. Since the
said time has already expired, we deem it fit to grant a further period
of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment, for complying with the directions issued by the Tribunal in
its order dated 19.11.2019 in O.A.No.2249 of 2018.
The original petition is dismissed modifying the order of the
Tribunal to the above extent. The parties will bear their respective
costs.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI, JUDGE
dsn
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.2249/2018
ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P1(A1) TO EXHIBIT
P1(A8).
EXHIBIT P1 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
IN OA 253/2018 DATED 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.3075/
2018/REVENUE DATED 28.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF
POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE FOR THE MONTH OF
AUGUST 2000.
EXHIBIT P1 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANTS
REPRESENTATION DATED 21.10.2016
ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANTS
REPRESENTATION DATED 15.09.2017
ADDRESSED TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
POOYAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P1 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.173/17 DATED
16.09.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE SWEEPING AREA
CERTIFICATE NO.D4.983/86 DATED
23.07.2003 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOTTARAKKARA TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.4463/2007/RD
DATED 09.11.2007.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 09.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 06.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED
21.10.2019 ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4(A11)
TO P4(A13).
EXHIBIT P4 (A11) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.4576/2009/RD
DATED 17.12.2009.
EXHIBIT P4 (A12) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.788/2017/RD DATED
25.02.2017 COMPLYING WITH THE ORDERS OF
THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN TA
NO.2129/2012 DATED 06.04.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 (A13) TRUE COPY OF ORDERS IN OA 455/2017
DATED 10.07.2019 OF THE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED
19.11.2019 IN THE AFORESAID ORIGINAL
APPLICATION.
