Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R. PUSHPA, W/O.SABARIMUTHU versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R. PUSHPA, W/O.SABARIMUTHU v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 33882 of 2006(H) [2007] RD-KL 1593 (19 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33882 of 2006(H)

1. R. PUSHPA, W/O.SABARIMUTHU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUGATHAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :19/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.33882 OF 2006 H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 19th January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as Part-time Sweeper on daily wages. She has filed application for regularisation of her service and for pay and allowances at the rate applicable to regular employees in terms of the Government Orders on the subject. Facts necessary for consideration of the claim of the petitioner have been stated by her in Ext. P4 representation filed before the 1st respondent. The Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 3) as per Ext. P3 has written to the Superintending Engineer about the need for having one more post of Part-time Sweeper in the P.W.D. Building Section.

2. Government is the competent authority to create or sanction posts of Part-time Sweepers and also to pass orders regularising the service of the incumbents working in the various government departments as per Govt. Order dated 25-11-2005. It is, therefore, only just and proper that Ext. P4 representation filed by the petitioner is taken up for WPC No.33882 /2006 -2- consideration along with Ext. P3 letter and other particulars furnished by the subordinate engineers. Government shall pass orders on Ext. P4 in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. Until orders are passed on Ext. P4, status quo as it obtains today shall continue, as far as the petitioner is concerned. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.