STATE OF KERALA Vs. SEENA K.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Kerala and its officers are aggrieved by Ext. P2 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, directing consideration of the third respondent's proposal for sanction of a regular post of Part-time Sweeper in the office of the third respondent and the applicant's claim for regularisation of her service as Part-time Sweeper in that post. The parties are referred to as per their status in the original application.

(2.) The following facts are not in dispute:- The applicant was engaged as casual Part-time Sweeper in the office of the third respondent from 1.9.2000 onwards. The Government had, pursuant to the decision of this Court in Mercy v. State of Kerala [2004 (2) KLT 848], issued G.O.(P) No. 501/2005/Fin. dated 25.11.2005 prescribing the guidelines for regularisation of existing eligible casual sweepers and appointments against future arising vacancies of sweepers/cleaners in Government offices. As per the guidelines, if on measurement the sweeping area of a Government office is seen to exceed 100 Sq. Mtrs, and a casual Part-time Sweeper is working in that office and no post of Part-time Sweeper has been sanctioned, the Head of the Office shall immediately take up the matter with the Government for creation of a post of Part-time Contingent Sweeper. On such request, the post shall be created with effect from the date of appointment of the incumbent as casual sweeper or from 18.6.2001, whichever is later. In accordance with the guidelines, the sweeping area of the third respondent's office was measured and found to be 153.95 Sq. Mtrs. Accordingly, proposal was submitted repeatedly for sanctioning the post of Part-time Sweeper and to regularise the service of the applicant. The repeated proposals did not evoke any response from the Government, and therefore the applicant herself submitted a request, which also met with the same fate. Thereupon, the original application was filed.

(3.) The sole contention raised before the Tribunal by the officials respondents, as discernible from the impugned order, was that the Government had, by communication dated 28.12.2018, returned the proposal submitted by the third respondent, expressing inability to consider the proposal for the time being and directing to engage a casual sweeper on contract with the local Kudumbasree unit.