Dismissed

Sathyabhama P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2020WA/884/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single Judge Bench allowed a writ appeal challenging a judgment dismissing a petition for continued employment. The Court held that the Appellant had no legal right to continue employment beyond the expired contract term, rendering central and scheme instructions irrelevant.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of with an observation that government instructions are irrelevant as the petitioner has no legal right to continue employment beyond the contract period.

Sathyabhama P Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.884 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10829/2020(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

SATHYABHAMA P, AGED 46 YEARS ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, PULLUR PERIYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.CHALINGAL,HARIPURAM, KASARAGOD-671531.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2 RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER & MISSION DIRECTOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, T.C.26/1333(2), PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

3 PULLUR PERIYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALLINGAL HARIPURAM, KASARGOD-671 531.

¶16

4 SECRETARY, PULLUR PERIYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHALLINGAL HARIPURAM, KASARGOD-671 531.

¶17

WA.No.884 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

5	THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,
	REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, PULLUR PERIYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHALLINGAL HARIPURAM,KASARAGOD-671 531.
6	THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND JOINT PROGRAM CO-
	ORDINATOR,
	MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE
	SCHEME, P.A.U, KASARAGOD-671123.

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR-SR. G.P;.

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.884 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

The writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 29.06.2020 in W.P.(C) No.10829/2020. The petitioner has been working as Accountant Cum Data Entry Operator under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). She challenged Ext.P8 order, insofar as the Panchayat has taken a decision to terminate her appointment on the ground that the period of employment had expired on 25.02.2019. In fact she had submitted an application dated 15.01.2019 and filed W.P.(C) No.5332/2019 not to terminate her. She continued in service on the basis of interim orders therein. Later the writ petition came to be dismissed rejecting her claim to continue beyond the contract period.

¶28

The learned single Judge, after considering the fact that there is already an interparte judgment between the parties, held that the petitioner do not have the right to continue in employment. However, it was observed that, even though the petitioner cannot raise claim to continue under the 3rd respondent, it will be open for the Panchayat to allow the petitioner to continue in service in case there is any work, as already directed in W.P.

WA.No.884 OF 2020

In fact the petitioner had raised the claim, despite the disposal

¶33

of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5332/2020 based on Ext.P7 and Ext.P12. Ext.P7, is an instruction issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, on 20.03.2020 in the light of present COVID-19 pandemic. It was inter alia observed that all the employers of public/private establishments are advised to extend their co-ordination by not terminating their employees particularly casual or contractual workers from job or reduce their wages. Ext.P12 is a communication from the Project Directions & Joint Program Co-ordinatary, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, requesting the Grama Panchayat Secretary to keep in abeyance the order of termination of the petitioner. In fact the petitioner's claim was to permit her to continue in employment and for which, she had filed W.P.(C) No.5332/2020. In that case, the Panchayat authorities had filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that her employment cannot be continued as the term of employment had already expired. The matter was taken in appeal as W.A.No. 625/2020, which resulted in judgment dated 21.03.2020. The Division Bench having placed reliance on

¶34

WA.No.884 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

judgments in W.A.No.1570/2018 and connected cases, dismissed the said appeal. It is not in dispute that the contract employee has no legal right to continue in employment, beyond the period of contract.

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellant only seeks certain benefits based on Exts.P7 and P12. In fact the learned single Judge had already directed that it will be open for the Panchayat to allow the petitioner to continue in service in case there is any work. In that view of the matter, it will be open for the Panchayat to take into consideration any such claim of the petitioner. We do not think that Exts.P7 and P12 have any relevance on the issue especially when the petitioner has no legal right to continue in employment.

¶38

The writ appeal is hence disposed of with the above observation.

¶39

Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶40

sd/-

¶41

GOPINATH.P, JUDGE

¶42

AMV/13/07/2020

Sathyabhama P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyabhama P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India, Vs M.K.Lohithakshan

Mohandas.K Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Director, Kannur Dental College Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

The State of Kerala Vs Maria Goretty T.S.

Divya S.J. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Amlps, Vs Jose Pappalil