LALITHA V.N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is, by virtue of Exhibits P5, P10 and P12, she is entitled to get benefit under Government Order, Exhibit P10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as part -time sweeper in the office of the Sales -tax Officer, Second Circle, which was functioning at Vyttila from 1996 onwards. It is also not in dispute that when the said office came to be shifted to Mini Civil Station, Thripunithura, her service was terminated with effect from 5.4.2000. Apparently, the petitioner did not move even her little finger questioning the termination of her service as part -time sweeper in 2000. She approached the Court only in 2007, when some other casual labourers were regularised based on Government Order at Exhibit P5. Exhibit P5 Government Order refers to various aspects of the matter, including issuance of earlier Government Order directing stoppage of availing services on temporary basis and also keeping the said Government Order in abeyance. The important and relevant Government Order referred to here is Government Order dated 17.7.2003. Paragraphs 4 and 10 of the said Government Order reads as follows:

(2.) APART from that, the heading of the Government Order indicates, these are the guidelines for regularisation of existing eligible casual sweepers and appointments against future vacancies of sweepers. This notification is dated 25.11.2005. The Government Order in this direction came to be issued on 17.7.2003 and by virtue of the said Government Order, certain casual labourers came to be terminated and therefore, certain benefits came to be given to them by virtue of the Government Order dated 25.11.2005 as the Government Order dated 17.7.2003 was kept in abeyance. In that view of the matter, reading of the entire G.O would mean, the part -time sweepers, who were terminated by virtue of G.O dated 17.7.2003 also to be included while extending the benefit as per G.O dated 25.11.2005. The other condition is, they must be existing eligible casual sweepers. In order to consider one as an existing casual labourer as on the date of G.O dated 17.7.2003 and also as on the date of G.O dated 25.11.2005 the part time sweepers must be actually working as casual labourers. Admittedly, the present petitioner was terminated on 5.4.2000, therefore, neither on the date of G.O dated 17.7.2003 nor on the date of G.O dated 25.11.2005 she was in service. There is nothing on record to indicate that by virtue of some court order questioning her termination, she is also entitled to get such benefit as her service could be considered as a continuing service. It is also not in dispute that she was re -engaged only in 2007, subsequent to expiry of benefit extended in G.O dated 25.11.2005. The question is whether she would be entitled for the benefit contemplated under G.O dated 25.11.2005. If the two conditions are not complied with by the petitioner and she does not fall within the parameters explained in the Government Order, her service would not get regularised for the simple reason that she was engaged again in 2007. Of course, if any such future Government Orders like Exhibit P5 comes into existence, she may claim such benefit. But, as of now, other than Exhibits P5 and P10, there are no other Government Orders, which would entitle her to get the benefit. The recommendation of the officer, under whom the petitioner is working, is only a letter addressed and there cannot be any regularisation of service based on such recommendation unless the right of the petitioner is protected or safeguarded by a Government Order or a Statute. Exhibit P10 was rightly considered. The application is properly rejected by Kerala Administrative Tribunal.