O. THANKAPPAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Chain man in the Office of the Special Tahsildar (LA). According to him he entered service as a daily rated Chain man in December, 1968. While working as a daily rated Chain man, the Government created some regular posts of Chain man and to fill up these vacancies, contingent and daily rated Chain man were appointed on provisional basis. The vacancies were created on 13th February 1970, but the actual appointment was by order dated 21st May 1970. Petitioner joined service pursuant to Ext. P-1 order. Petitioner further contends that the Government have issued orders permitting similar last grade employees who have been provisionally appointed before 7th April 1970 to continue in service upto 60 years. Petitioner sent a representation on 1st June 1992 requesting to permit him to continue in service upto 60 years. This representation was rejected vide Ext. P-4 order. The reason for rejection of petitioner's representation is that he was appointed only after 7th April 1970. Therefore, the petitioner challenges Ext. P-4 and prays that he may be allowed to continue upto 60 years in service.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner is to retire at the age of 55 years. He was neither a provisional employee nor a regular employee as on 7th April 1970 and therefore he is not entitled to get the benefits under R.60(b) of Part-I Kerala Service Rules. On 13th December 1970, certain posts of regular Chain man were created and the existing contingent and daily rated Chain man were appointed on provisional basis. There was no lapse on the part of the Government. Petitioner joined duty as provisional Chain man only on 29th May 1970. G.O. (P) 564/89/ Fin., dated 29th November 1989 deals with the case of full-time contingent Chain man who were in service during 1st April 1968 to 7th April 1970. Petitioner had-to retire on 31st March 1993.

(3.) I heard the petitioner's counsel and also the Government Pleader. Under R.60(b) of Part.1 K.S.R. only those last grade servants who were in service as on 7th April 1970 are allowed to continue upto 60 years. Thereafter, the Government issued various orders by which certain other persons were also entitled to the benefit of R.60(b) of Part-I K.S.R. Ext. P-2 is one such order. By Ext: P-2 order, it was made clear that all full-time contingent employees who were appointed as provisional employees during the period from 1st April 1968 to 7th April 1970 and who are still continuing in service shall be treated as having been absorbed into regular establishment with effect from 7th April 1970 and they are entitled to the benefit of R.60(b) of Part.1 K.S.R. In order to avail the benefit of Ext. P-2 Government Order, it must be established that the petitioner was a full-time continent employee on or before 7th April 1970. Subsequently, Government had issued orders stating that parttime employees who were appointed after 1st April 1968 will also be deemed as full-time contingent employees for the purpose of the benefit under R.60(b). In the instant case, petitioner was admittedly a daily rated Chain man prior to 29th May 1970. So as on the date i.e., 7th April 1970, he was neither a parttime contingent employee nor a full-time contingent employee. The counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a decision reported in Kartar Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1955 Pepsu 25 and contended for the position that a daily rated person also would come under the contingent staff. I am not inclined to accept this contention. In the above decision it is only explained that the contingency staff are employed not in regular employment but employment merely incidental to an office for the period during which they have actually worked as no bill for any other period can be certified for payment.