LAILA T M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioners are the appellants. While regularising their service as Leprosy Inspectors in the Health Service Department, Government ordered that such regularisation can only be prospective and that their past service would not be counted for any service benefits, including pension. Their challenge against such restrictions imposed as per Ext.P1 Government Order was turned down by the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) Sri.Kaleeswaramraj, the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the conditions imposed in the impugned Ext.P1 that regularisation will have only perspective effect and that past service would not be counted for any service benefits including pension, are arbitrary and unreasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. He criticized such restrictions as amounting to indignation of the appellants, who are marginalised people; their pathetic situation being reflected even in the Government Orders which have ultimately been issued on 'humanitarian' consideration.

(3.) Per contra, Sri.Noble Mathew, the learned Senior Government Pleader, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 AIR(SC) 2130 and argued that the creation and abolition of post is the prerogative of the executive and the materials disclose that the writ petitioners and others had joined as provisional recruits being fully aware of the situation in which they would be placed. He also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in K.Madalaimuthu v. State of T.N., 2006 6 SCC 558 to point out that period of temporary service prior to regularisation is irrelevant even to determine the seniority.