AMMINI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are filed by the writ petitioners being aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions that sought to quash the Government Orders which fixed the upper age limit of 60 years on the basis of which their services were discontinued. The petitioners are daily wage cleaning staff members appointed by the Superintendent of Kottayam Medical College and they contended that they were doing the same job for the past 34 years. The petitioners alleged that there was discrimination in fixing the upper age limit of 60 for them alone while the daily wage employees recruited through the other four sources namely, Daily wages employees engaged by Hospital Development Society (HDS), Daily wages employees engaged by Hospital Management Committee (HMC), Daily wages employees engaged by Hospital Development Committee (HDC) and Daily wages employees employed under projects funded by Rashtria Swasthya Bima Yojana 100 projects,(RSBY) would retire only at the age of 65. Thus, it is the contention of the appellant/ Writ petitioners that all these persons recruited from different sources were doing the same job and earning the same income though they came from different sources, and thus fixing an upper age limit for the petitioners alone is discriminatory.

(2.) The petitioners submit that the Additional Chief Secretary to Government had issued a letter, Ext. P12 dtd. 28/11/2017 to the Superintendent of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam directing that from among the 104 employees working on daily wage basis, the services of those who turn 60 years as on 31/10/2017 should be terminated and a fresh proposal was to be submitted with respect to others. The 2nd respondent passed orders on 12/12/2017 (Ext. P2) terminating the services of 20 employees who had completed 60 years of age. Apprehending similar treatment, the petitioners in W.P.C. 26876/2020 filed a Writ Petition in which a direction was issued to the Government to consider their representation (Ext. P2) which was considered by the Government and rejected by Ext. P3 order. It is Ext. P3 which was challenged in the writ petitions.

(3.) Petitioners also relied on the judgment in Kerala Brahmana Sabha v. Vamana Prabhu and Others [2019 (3) KLT 438] to support their contention that there were no reason forthcoming in the impugned orders and thus they are bad. They also alleged discrimination as according to them, the other workers engaged through different sources were allowed to work even up to the age of 70. Petitioners also claimed that in the event of their termination being upheld, there may be a direction to pay compensation to them under Sec. 25 (f) Industrial Disputes Act, as the termination amounted to retrenchment. The Government, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners have no legal right to seek continuance as they were engaged on daily wages by the 2nd respondent when there was a shortage of cleaning staff and such engagement was not to any sanctioned post or after conducting any selection process. These aspects were considered by the Government while passing Ext.P3 order which is a speaking order. Government also contended that the petitioners cannot seek parity with the service conditions of the other part-time contingent employees in the Government or the contractual employees appointed by the Hospital Development Society, as those employees were engaged in the sanctioned posts after a due selection process and thus they were not similarly situated.