STATE OF KERALA Vs. P K SATHEESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether temporary employees regularised or regularly appointed in service on or after 1.10.1994, in continuation of the temporary service or not, are entitled to get increments reckoning their temporary service prior to such regularisation or regular appointment is the point arising in these Writ Appeals at the instance of the State.

(2.) In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge found that "there is no justification in denying the benefit of such provisional service for the only reason that it is not followed by regular appointment prior to 1.10.1994" and directed Government to consider the case of the respondents writ petitioners in the light of the decision reported in Sobhana v. State of Kerala ( 2004 (3) KLT 131 ). It is clear from Annexure C Government decision deleting Government decision No. 2, which enabled reckoning provisional service for the purpose of increment, that "those persons whose services were regularised with effect from 1.10.1994 or thereafter will not be entitled for increment reckoning their provisional service". Therefore, the observation made in the impugned judgment to reckon the provisional service for the purpose of granting increment is unjustified, the Government Pleader submits.

(3.) It is contended by the respondents/writ petitioners that their case cannot be considered like any other temporary appointees under R.9(a)(i) in of Part II KS & SSR. All of them were appointed as Junior Health Inspectors based on a centrally sponsored multi purpose workers scheme in the year 1986. There were no sufficient qualified hands for that job. Applications were invited by the Government. All the writ petitioners and others applied. The Writ petitioners were selected and trained by the Government and they were appointed and continued for years together on temporary basis. In the appointment the Government had followed the regular mode of selection and even the reservation on the basis of communal rotation as is applicable to regular appointees. It is submitted that the Government themselves were willing to regularise their services as revealed from Exhibit R2. The Government took up the issue in 1993 with the P.S.C. But the P.S.C. did not grant concurrence. The second consultation from the Government with the P.S.C for the purpose of over ruling the advice of the P.S.C. was delayed. It is seen from Exhibit R2 that in an Original Petition filed by the candidates who have registered their names for appointment as Junior Health Inspectors in Employment Exchanges challenging regularisation, this Court directed that the regularisation, if any, to be effected would be subject to the result of the Original Petition. This also caused delay. It was in the above circumstances that Exhibit R2 regularisation order was delayed until 31.3.1995. Otherwise all of them would have been regularised in the year 1993 and would have got the benefit of Government Decision No. 2 which existed until 30.9.1994.