BINDU N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who has been working as a Nursery Teacher in the Sisuvihar under the 3rd respondent Panchayat, is aggrieved by the denial of regularization to her despite regularization granted to several similarly situated others in accordance with the orders issued by the Government.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Nursery Teacher, on the basis of Ext. P1 decision of the Panchayat Committee, under Eleven Point Programme of Government. It is stated that the petitioner was being paid honorarium also in accordance with the Government orders issued from time to time. As per Ext. P5 order dated 08.05.2010, Government ordered that 418 Librarians, 160 Nursery Teachers and 160 Ayahs, who were appointed under the Eleven Point Programme, would be regularized as Part Time Contingent Employees. It is stated that Ext. P6 order was passed thereafter on 06.08.2010, permitting the Panchayats to regularize 300 librarians, 147 Nursery teachers and 134 Ayahs whose names were given in the list annexed to that order. But petitioner's name was not included in that list. In the meanwhile Panchayat as per order dated 18.05.2010., had already regularized the petitioner in tune with Ext. P5 order. Since her name was not seen included in the list along with Ext. P6 order, she was thereafter paid only on honorarium basis. Aggrieved by this, petitioner approached the grievance redressal cell of the Chief Minister and by Ext. P8 letter the Deputy Director of Panchayat called for a report in the matter from the Panchayat. Thereafter the Panchayat had by Ext. P9 resolution dated 09.06.2014 decided to recommend the Government for regularization of the petitioner, taking note of her appointment made on the basis of resolution dated 17.09.1999 and the sincere services rendered by her since 01.02.2000. But, Government as per Ext. P10 letter dated 28.07.2015 rejected the request for regularization on the ground that petitioner was appointed on honorarium basis from 02.06.2003 onwards.

(3.) Petitioner points out that the Panchayat had appointed her in 2000 itself as per Ext. P1 resolution, as specified in Ext. P9 resolution also and she has been working since 01.02.2000. Petitioner submits that she again approached the respondents with her grievances and as per Ext. P11 letter the 2nd respondent had called for the service records of the petitioners. It is stated that though all the service particulars were forwarded from the Panchayat there was no positive action.