PANCHAYAT EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSN. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ appeals are filed against a common judgment we are disposing of these writ appeals together. The main question to be decided in these cases, is the dispute between employees appointed by the Panchayat Department and employees appointed by the Panchayats due to integration of these two services and special rules for the Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Services Rules, 1994 (Ext. P3 in O.P. No. 8697/94). Various Panchayats of the State were recruiting and appointing their own employees till the year 1977. But from the year 1977 all the employees of the Panchayats in the State were constituted into a Common Service and the powers of appointment were taken away from the local bodies and conferred on the Director of Panchayats. Thereafter, by Government Order dated 3rd Feb., 1987 they were treated as Government employees (Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 8697/94). Panchayat Department employees and the Panchayat employees on the common service were integrated by Ext.P3 notification. Even though the above notification was publised in the Gazette dated 21st June, 1994 it was given effect from 1st Jan., 1990. Petitioners who were originally Department employees challenges the above special rules on various grounds as according to them their conditions of services are affected unilaterally. It is also contended by them that the retrospective effect has affected their vested rights. Their contentions were considered by the learend Judge in a very detailed judgment.

(2.) So far as the Government servants are concerned, their conditions of service depend on the rules in force and that rules can be unilaterally altered by the rule making authority. Now the only question placed before us is regarding the retrospective application of the above rule affecting the vested rights of the appellants especially Rule 3(2) which is as follows :

(3.) According to the appellants they were promoted on the basis of the rules existing on the date of promotion. Such vested rights cannot be taken away by retrospective amendment. Therefore, even though special rules can be framed retrospectively, the rules cannot take away the vested rights and mere protection given to them by the Government against their reversion is not enough. The contention of the Government which was accepted by the learned Judge was that there were demands from large number of employees for integration and giving benefits from 1987 onwards. At the same time appellants who are small in number insisted (upon) protection for future right and as a viamedia date 1.1.90 was taken. Apart from that no nexus is shown to the date 1.1.90, the date of implementation. However, it is stated that the cabinet has decided the matter finally after referring with P.S.C. to implement the rule in its meeting held on 20th Oct., 1993. Thereafter only rules were published. That is the reason for the provision that the employees promoted on or before 20.10.93 shall not be reverted was incorporated. Since cabinet has decided the matter on 20th Oct., 1993 at the maximum that date has some nexus. Any promotion effected on the basis of the existing rules prior to the publication of the notification upto 20th Oct., 1993 shall not be affected by the special rules as vested rights cannot be affected. If a person is promoted before 20th Oct., 1993, his promotion from that date cannot be affected at all by the retrospective effect as persons promoted before 20th Oct., 1993 had already accrued the vested right. However, provisional promotions effected after 20th Oct., 1993, i.e. after the cabinet decision will not get the above right. So with the observation that vested rights of the persons who got promotion on the basis of the rules existing prior to 20th Oct., 1993 shall not be affected by the amended rules all these writ appeals are disposed of. They should be treated as promoted with the respective dates of promotion and retrospectivity of the rules cannot change their rights. Consequential benefits may be made expeditiously, in any event, within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Order accordingly.