Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Syamala Kumari Amma vs The Registrar Kerala Lok Ayuktha
2024 Latest Caselaw 5895 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5895 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Syamala Kumari Amma vs The Registrar Kerala Lok Ayuktha on 23 February, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

WP(C) NO. 3887 OF 2013            1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                          WP(C) NO. 3887 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:

      1        SYAMALA KUMARI AMMA
               AGED 43 YEARS
               PART TIME SWEEPER, KERALA LOK AYUKTHA,
               KADAKKARATHEKKETHIL VEEDU, ANAYARA,
               THIRUVAANNTHAPURAM 695 027.

      2        S.SASIKALA
               PART TIME SWEEPER, KERALA LOK AYUKTHA,
               AMBALAKANDATHU VEEDU,PRASANTH NAGAR, THIRUVIKKAL
               P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

               BY ADV SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        THE REGISTRAR KERALA LOK AYUKTHA
               LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

      2        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
               GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.H.ASIF
               SMT.RENU. D.P., SC, LOK AYUKTA
 WP(C) NO. 3887 OF 2013            2




OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3887 OF 2013              3




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   ---------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No. 3887 of 2013
                    --------------------------------------
             Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024


                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

A) "Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to retain the petitioners in service of Kerala Lok Ayuktha as part time sweepers and regularize their services.

B) Hold that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service of Kerala Lok Ayuktha as part time sweepers and that the steps taken to terminate their services is arbitrary and illegal.

C) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service as Part-time sweepers in Kerala Lok Ayuktha, and D) issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances." [sic]

2. The petitioners are the part time sweepers of Kerala

Lok Ayuktha appointed as per Exts.P1 and P2. It is submitted

that Government had sanctioned 7 posts of part-time sweepers

in the office of the Kerala Lok Ayuktha as per GO (MS) No.

79/99/Vid dated 06.09.1999 and GO (MS) No.101/2000/Vig

dated 07.11.2000. It is also submitted that appointments have

been made to the said 7 posts at various times on co-terminus

basis. The petitioners though appointed on co-terminus basis,

have been working continuously and without interruption ever

since the issuance of Exts.P1 and P2 is the submission. In view

of their long and continuous service, the petitioners along with

the two other part-time sweepers had sought regularisation of

their services. The regularisation issue was recommended by

the Lok Ayuktha to the Government as per Ext.P3, by which

four persons including the petitioners were recommended for

regularisation. But the Government as per Ex.P3 order

regularised only two persons excluding the petitioners. No

reason is mentioned in Ext.P3 for excluding the petitioners.

The recommendation of the petitioners for regularisation is

not considered in Ext.P3 is the grievance. Hence, this writ

petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

08.02.2023, the termination of service of the petitioners were

stayed and the stay order is in force even now. After hearing

both sides, I am of the considered opinion that since there is a

recommendation for regularising the service of four part time

sweepers and when the two of the part time sweepers' service

is regularised, it is the duty of the Government to give reason

for rejecting the recommendation as far as the petitioners are

concerned. Absolutely, no reason is mentioned in Ext. P3 and

there is no detailed discussion regarding the reason for

rejecting the recommendation as far as the petitioners are

concerned for the regularisation. Ofcourse, it is stated in

Ext.P3 order that the Government had examined the case in

detail and found that Smt. K.Santha and Smt.Jayasree have

been working as Part Time sweepers from 1986-87 onwards

and as per the available sweeping area and as per the

provisions of the GO(P) No. 61/2012/Fin. dated 09.02.2010,

they are eligible for protection. It is submitted by the

petitioners that in the light of Clause IV of GO(P)

No.61/2012/Fin. dated 09.02.2010, the petitioners are also

entitled the benefit. If that is the case, this is a matter to be

reconsidered. In such circumstances, I am of the considered

opinion that the Government should consider the request of the

petitioners for regularisation in the light of the

recommendation by the Lok Ayuktha as evident from Ext.P3.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions :

1) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the question of

regularisation of the petitioners in the light of the

recommendation from the 1st respondent as evident from

Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this judgment.

2) While deciding the matter, the 2 nd respondent will

consider Clause IV of GO (P) No.61/2012/Fin. dated

09.02.2010 also.

3) Till a decision is taken by the 2 nd respondent, the interim

order passed by this Court staying the termination of the

petitioners will continue.

SD/-

                                         P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
                                               JUDGE
SKS





                                           APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS                  :

EXT.P1    TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1/9/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

EXT.P2    TRUE           COPY     OF    ORDER    DATED   30.03.2001     OF    THE   1ST
RESPONDENT

EXT.P3    TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/1/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS                  :

EXT.R1(A)                TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.6.9.1999 ISSUED BY
GOVERNMENT.

EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.7.11.2000 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT.

EXT.R1(C) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.28.2.2001 BY VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT.

EXT.R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER(RELEVANT PORTION) DT.31.1.2004 OF LOK AYUKTA.

EXT.R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.24.11.2011 BY LOK AYUYKTA.

EXT.R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.9.2.2010 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter