Sunitha vs the State of Kerala

Sunitha vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1489251

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1489251
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun
Decided On: Jan 31, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/14590/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunitha

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....counsel for the petitioner contended that the benefit of ext.p1 should be extended to the petitioners. learned counsel for the 5th respondent municipality submitted that the petitioners cannot seek the benefit of ext.p1, as much as the government order is only with respect to contract employees and is not intended for daily waged workers like the petitioners.4. on careful scrutiny of ext.p1, i find the contention to bewell founded. it is specifically stated in ext.p1 that contractual employees in local self government institutions should not be terminated, even if their period of contract has expired. petitioners are engaged on daily wage basis and therefore, cannot seek extension of their tenure or aspire for continuance in service based of ext.p1. the stand adopted by the 5 th respondent is reiterated by the government in clear terms. it is also pointed out that the hospitals are planning to implement e-health programme by computerising many of the functions. new facilities and units are being provided in the hospital, the functioning of which requires the service of technically qualified persons as well as non-technical employees. being so, replacement of the staff is expedient and any further delay will be to the detriment of the public. the learned government pleader also pointed out that, petitioners had responded to ext.p2 notification by participating in the interview and are therefore estopped from seeking continuance. 4.having heard the learned counsel and being conscious of the distinction between contract employees and daily waged employees, i am convinced that the benefit of ext.p1 cannot be extended to daily waged employees like the petitioners. in the result the writ petition is dismissed. sd/- v.g arun judge sj appendix of wp(c) 14590/2021 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of the order dated, 1.6.2021 issued by the department of local self government institutions as g.o(rt)no.1067/2021/lsgd exhibit p2 true copy of the publication dated.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 11TH MAGHA, 1943 PETITIONER/S:
1 SUNITHA AGED 41 YEARS D/O.AYYAPPAN, PULIKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, GUDALAYI, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2 SUNITHA W/O.MURUKAN, AGED 40 YEARS, BILNA HOUSE, PERUNTHATTA, 3 REJINA W/O.SEJEER, AGED 40 YEARS, PANAKKADAN HOUSE, ONIVAYAL, 4 RONIYA SHIJU W/O.SHIJU, AGED 32 YEARS, POLLAYIL HOUSE, MUNDERI, 5 SHILBY MATHEW W/O.ELDHO, AGED 30 YEARS, CHAKKALIKKAL HOUSE, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6 VASUMATHI W/O.LATE DAMU, AGED 50 YEARS, KALLOOR VEEDU, KARADIMANNU, PULIYARMALA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 7 RAMANI W/O.RAJU, AGED 47 YEARS, VISHNU NIVAS, PULIYARMALA, KALPETTA P.O., WAYNAD DISTRICT. 8 MANOJ KUMAR S/O.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KILIYAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUNTHATTA, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 9 PRASANNA W/O.VASUDEVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, MULLAPALLY HOUSE, NEDUNGODE, MANIYANGODE, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 10 DIVYA W/O.VIREESH, KIZHALATH HOUSE, AGED 35 YEARS, PULPPARA, 11 USHA W/O.LATE MADHU, AGED 52 YEARS, PURANTHARAYIL HOUSE, NENMENI, MUTTIL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 12 UNNIKRISHNAN S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PRAMEELA NIVAS, MUNDERI,
13 PREMALATHA W/O.PRAKASAN, MANALUMPURATH, AGED 45 YEARS, KARADIMANNU, PULIYARMALA, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 14 RESHMA D/O.HARIDAS, THARAKAPOYIL HOUSE, AGED 26 YEARS, GANDHI NAGAR, KAINATTI, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV K.RAKESH RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. 3 THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT, PALAYAM - AIRPORT ROAD, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 595 035. 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., KALPETTA, WAYNAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 122. 5 ADDL. R5. THE KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY MUNCIPAL OFFICE, KALPETTA, WAYNAD, DISTRICT, PIN - 673 122, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. [IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.08.2021 IN I.A.1/2021 IN WP(C)14590/2021.] BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER REJI GEORGE NASEER MOIDU
OTHER PRESENT: GP PREMCHAND R. NAIR(SR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2022 The petitioners have been engaged on Daily Wage basis to man different posts at the Government General Hospital, Kalpetta. They bank upon Ext.P1 Order to contend that the Government, in its wisdom has decided to extend the term of contract employees, in view of the pandemic situation. The petitioners feel threatened by Ext.P2 notification of the 4th respondent, inviting applications for various posts at the General Hospital, Kalpetta. The solitary contention is that, the Government having extended the tenure of persons like the petitioners, appointed for performing covid related duties, Ext.P2 should not result in they being terminated from service.

2. Heard Adv.K.Rakesh, counsel for the petitioner,

Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Adv. Regi George for the additional 5th respondent. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the benefit of Ext.P1 should be extended to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent Municipality submitted that the petitioners cannot seek the benefit of Ext.P1, as much as the Government Order is only with respect to contract employees and is not intended for daily waged workers like the petitioners.

4. On careful scrutiny of Ext.P1, I find the contention to be

well founded. It is specifically stated in Ext.P1 that contractual employees in Local Self Government Institutions should not be terminated, even if their period of contract has expired. Petitioners are engaged on daily wage basis and therefore, cannot seek extension of their tenure or aspire for continuance in service based of Ext.P1. The stand adopted by the 5 th respondent is reiterated by the Government in clear terms. It is also pointed out that the hospitals are planning to implement e-health programme by computerising many of the functions. New facilities and units are being provided in the hospital, the functioning of which requires the service of technically qualified persons as well as non-technical employees. Being so, replacement of the staff is expedient and any further delay will be to the detriment of the Public. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that, petitioners had responded to Ext.P2 notification by participating in the interview and are therefore estopped from seeking continuance. 4.Having heard the learned counsel and being conscious of the distinction between contract employees and daily waged employees, I am convinced that the benefit of Ext.P1 cannot be extended to daily waged employees like the petitioners. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- V.G ARUN JUDGE SJ APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14590/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 1.6.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AS G.O(RT)NO.1067/2021/LSGD Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION DATED 3/7/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Sunitha vs The State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun