RAJALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a casual part time sweeper in the Taluk Supply Office, Ottapalam. According to the petitioner, she has been working there from 1999 onwards on daily wage basis and, therefore, she is entitled to be regularised in service. But her claim for regularisation in service has been rejected by Ext.P10 order of the Civil Supplies Director, whereby, it has been held that since the Taluk Supply Officer has reported that the petitioner has not worked in the office on 25.11.2008 or prior to that date, the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation in service. In Exts.P5 and P7, the Taluk Supply Officer himself has stated that after 30.9.1999 the office never had any permanent part time sweeper and the petitioner had worked only on daily wages. THErefore, I passed the following interim order on 19.10.2010.

(2.) TODAY, the learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received by him, submits that for intermittent periods the petitioner had in fact worked even prior to 25.11.2008. That being so, the reason given in Ext.P10 is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P10 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the question of regularisation of the service of the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of this Court and the Government orders issued pursuant to the judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.