Petitioners challenging termination of services under MNREG scheme contracts. Court held contract terms govern tenure; no right to claim renewal via writ after expiry. Dismissed writ; re-appointment subject to eligibility.
Writ petition dismissed; no direction to renew contracts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1940
WP(C).No. 11993 of 2017
PETITIONERS :
1 NEETHU MOHAN O., W/O BIJUMON V.S., AGED 27 YEARS, OTTIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,VADAKUMPURAM P.O. NORTH PARAVUR- 683 521.
2 AMBILY K.R., W/O SURESH M.A., AGED 34 YEARS, MANATHARA HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., PATTANAM- 683 522.
3 NEETHU K.S. D/O SURESH K.P., AGED 27 YEARS, KANNETH HOUSE, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARUR- 683 520.
4 GISHA P.N., AGED 30 YEARS, W/O PRADEEP KUMAR, PANIKKASSERIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., PATTANAM- 683 522.
BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE THULASI K RAJ
RESPONDENTS :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT (ANNEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN- 695 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 1ST FLOOR,PUNARJANI, PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
WP(C).No. 11993 of 2017
3. CHITTATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKEKKARA P.O., NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 522, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH
SMT.T.M. RESHMY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 11993 of 2017 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBITP1 |
TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
LETTER DATED 2-5-2013 ISSUED BY |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 |
TRUE COPY OF MINU 3RD RESPONDENT |
TES DATED 26-3-2008 ISSUED BY |
| EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE COPY OF LETE RESPONDENT |
R DATED 16-8-2012 ISSUED BY 3RD |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE | CONRACT DATED 29-2-2016 |
| EXHIBITP5 | TRUE COPY OF THE | CONTRACT DATED 29-2-2016 |
| EXHIBITP6 | TRUE COPY OF THE | CONTRACT DATED 29-2-2016 |
| EXHIBITP7 | TRUE COPY OF THE | CONTRACT DATED 29-2-2016 |
| EXHIBITP8 |
TRUE COPY OF THE 3-3-2016 |
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P9 |
TRUE COPY OF THE 29-03-2012 |
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED |
| EXHIBIT P10 |
TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 30-03-2017 |
MINUTES OF 3RD RESPONDENT |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
16.4.2018
P.V.ASHA J.
W.P.(C).No.11993 of 2017
------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners, who were appointed in the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MNREG) Scheme, on contract basis, filed this writ petition alleging that their services were going to be terminated contrary to the direction in Ext.P8 order of Government issued on 03.03.2016.
W.P.(C).No.11993 of 2017
2
Government had issued Ext.P8 order on 03.03.2016, directing that Accredited Engineers, Draft man (Civil), Accountant cum Data Entry Operators, I.T professionals etc., working on contract basis, under the MGNREG scheme shall have a tenure of 2 years instead of one year. Petitioners have been continuing on the basis of Ext.P8 order. Petitioners filed this writ petition, in April 2017, alleging that there was an attempt to terminate their services on political grounds, in violation of Ext.P8 order. Petitioners relied on Ext.P9 order issued by Government in the year 2012, authorising the Rural Development Commissioner to take a decision on the question of termination of services and directing the respective Grama Panchayaths that the services of the Assistant Engineers, Overseers, Accountant cum Data Entry Operators, etc., shall be terminated only on prior approval from the Rural Development Commissioner and saying that if they are sent out in bulk, it will affect the smooth functioning of the Scheme.
W.P.(C).No.11993 of 2017
3
in July 2017 stating that the contract period in respect of the petitioners have already expired by 31.03.2016. It is stated that the period of appointment stipulated in the agreements Exts.R3(a), (b), (c) and (d), which are the last agreements executed by petitioners was on 01.04.2015 and that the term of their contract appointment had expired on 31.03.2016. It is stated that there was no agreement with effect from 02.03.2016 as alleged by the petitioners. Ext.P8 order was issued at a time when the contract period of the petitioners was due to expire on 31.03.2016. In the light of Ext.P8 order, the period of contract stood extended till 31.03.2017; they were not entitled to continue any more as claimed by them in the writ petition, upto 31.03.2018,. It is stated that the petitioners could continue for one more year despite the terms of agreement in Ext.R3 series, on account of Ext.P8 order. It is stated that there is no question of renewal of contract and their term of appointment was determined at the time when they entered into the contract and it is not necessary to issue any order of termination.
W.P.(C).No.11993 of 2017
4
W.P.(C).No.11993 of 2017
5
Ext.P8 extending the term of appointment of those who are engaged under MNREG Scheme.
W.P.(C).No.11993 of 2017
6
employer and employee are governed by its terms. Once the period of contract expired the petitioners do not have any right to claim renewal of contract and it is settled law that no writ of mandamus could be issued for renewal of contract. It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment dated 21.10.2016 in W.A. 2071 of 2016 this Court had permitted only one more year for the contract appointees under the MNREGS, in the light of Ext.P8 order, while approving the proposition that the appointees would be governed by the contract. Therefore petitioners cannot have any claim for renewal of contract or retention.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to direct the Panchayath to renew the contract of the petitioners. At any rate, it will be open to the respondent Panchayath to re-appoint the petitioners, in case they are eligible and are in the Rank list in case there is requirement for such appointment.
In the case of the 3rd petitioner, the respondents have in the counter affidavit stated that she has come out in the selection as Rank No.1. Therefore it will be open
W.P.(C).No.11993 of 2017
7
for the respondents to re-appoint her on executing fresh
agreement.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners appointed under MNREG scheme on contract basis can claim renewal of contract after expiry of agreed term.
Whether writ of mandamus can be issued to compel renewal of expired contract appointments.
Whether petitioners retained due to interim order were entitled to continue beyond extended contractual term.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A. 2071 of 2016Referred¶8
NEETHU MOHAN
AMBILY K.R.
NEETHU K.S.
GISHA P.N.
STATE OF KERALA
CHITTATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
