Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR G. – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 15 OF 2022 | O.A NO.2014/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ASOK M.CHERIAN, SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
For the Respondents: M.V.THAMBAN, R.REJI, THARA THAMBAN, B.BIPIN, ARUN BOSE, SUNEESH KUMAR R.
The court upheld the entitlement of a casual part-time worker to regularize employment based on government order, emphasizing administrative responsibility in compliance with legal mandates.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to a final order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal regarding regularization of services of a casual part-time sweeper - The applicant entitled to regularization as per Annexure A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005, with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary - The Tribunal's order noted that all necessary conditions for regularization were fulfilled, specifically emphasizing compliance with governmental directives. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11)
(B) Appeal - Judicial review in government litigation - The court emphasized that government challenges to tribunal decisions, particularly when they are favorable to marginalized groups, should be cautiously approached to avoid unnecessary litigation and public interest detriment. (Paras 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought regularization as a Part-time Sweeper having served since 1998 without appropriate acknowledgment by government officials, who failed to follow the regularization process mandated by government orders.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld the Tribunal's decision affirming the applicant’s right to regularization and established that administrative lapses by officials could not negate the applicant's entitlements.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria for regularization according to the relevant G.O.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the obligations of the government and its officers to fulfill statutory and constitutional duties are paramount and cannot be overlooked due to their internal administrative delays.
Result: Original Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The final order of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 herein rendered on01.07.2019 in the instant original application, O.A No.2014/2018 rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench is under challenge before us in the original petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India . The respondents in the said O.A are the petitioners in this O.P and the sole applicant in the above O.A has been arrayed as the sole respondent in this O.P.
2. The sole applicant in the O.A has filed the instant Ext.P-1 original application, O.A No.2014/2018 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench with the following prayers :
“i) To issue a declaration that on the basis of Annexure A2 government order, the applicant is entitled regularization as Regular Part-time Sweeper at the office of the Assistant Engineer, PWD Road Section, Anchal, Kollam District, w.e.f18.06.2001.
ii) To issue a further declaration that Annexure A9 government letter issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the spirit of Annexure A2 government order.
iii) To issue a further declaration that Annexure A10 government circular is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the very purpose of Annexure A2 government order, unsustainable and not applicable to the case of the applicant.
iv) To call for the records leading upto Annexure A10 and set aside Annexure A9 and Annexure A10.
v) To issue a direction, directing the respondent to regularize the service of the applicant as Regular Part-time Sweeper on the basis of Annexure A2 government order, at the office of the Assistant Engineer, PWD Road Section, Anchal, Kollam District, w.e.f 18.06.2001, with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and other service benefits.
vi) To issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in circumstances of this case and award exemplary cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.”
3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the aforementioned impugned Ext.P-3 final order in the said O.A on 01.07.2019, whereby the above O.A has been finally disposed with the clear finding that the applicant herein is fully entitled for getting regularization as Part-Time Sweeper, in terms of para.8 of Annexure-A2 G.O(P)No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005, with all consequential benefits. It is the abovesaid verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 herein that is under challenge in the above original petition filed at the instance of the State of Kerala and the departmental officers concerned.
4. Heard Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General instructed and assisted by Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P/respondents in the O.A and Sri.M.V.Thamban, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A.
5. The original applicant has been engaged as Casual Sweeper in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (Road Section), Anchal, Kollam w.e.f 01.11.1998 on a fixed monthly remuneration. The sweeping area of the said office premises, where the applicant has been employed as Sweeper was 102.94 Sq.M. at the relevant time, as can be seen from Annexure-A1 certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department (PWD). For compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 18.06.2004 in W.P(C) No.30927/2003 & 47 other connected cases, the case in Mercy v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT 848] , was affirmed by the judgment dated 12.08.2005 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1863/2004 & connected cases. The competent authority of the State Government has framed a comprehensive scheme for regularization of such Casual Sweepers, as per Annexure-A2 G.O(P) No.501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005. The main conditions for securing the benefit of regularization as per Annexure-A2 G.O dated 25.11.2005, are th
