SHEHABAN Vs. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY CCSB ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues are involved in this writ petition, they are heard and disposed of together:

(2.) Petitioners are temporary sanitation workers in the respondent municipality on daily wage basis. The apprehension raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the respondent would replace the petitioners who are temporary employees with another set of temporary employees which is against the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118. Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.14991 of 2022 is one of the notices issued to a candidate offered by the employment exchange for appointment as a temporary sanitation worker. Petitioners would contend that these appointments are also on a temporary basis and the petitioners have also put in considerable length of service though on a temporary basis. Without filling the vacancies with permanently appointed hands, the respondent municipality is attempting to select another set of temporary employees and replace the petitioners which is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Piara Singh 's case cited supra. It is apprehending disengagement that the petitioners have approached this Court. Another contention raised by the petitioners is that the Municipal Council is the appointing authority of contingent workers as per Sec. 224(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Ext.P3 produced in W.P.(C) No.21141 of 2023 is the guidelines issued by the Government for selection of substitute contingent workers. Ext.P3 mandates that when regular vacancies arise in the contingent establishment in the local bodies, the substitute workers should be appointed to the said vacancies based on seniority and they have to be selected from persons registered with employment exchange. It was further contended that when the Government was notified about the fact that several selections were made in the local bodies, as temporary contingent workers in violation of Ext.P3 guidelines, the Government issued orders directing that the temporary workers employed prior to 31/12/1991 in violation of the guidelines prescribed in Ext.P3 will be given the status of substitute workers selected from those candidates registered with the employment exchange in terms of Ext.P3 guidelines and those temporary workers selected after 31/12/1991 will be terminated. Considering the representation of several local bodies received by the Government pertaining to the hardship that will be caused to them if such temporary workers are terminated, the Government stayed its own order of termination of such temporary workers. Thereafter, Government examined the matter again and issued Ext.P4 Government Order directing that those temporary workers employed by the local bodies on daily wages prior to 31/12/2000 in violation of Ext.P3 Government order will be deemed to be treated as substitute workers selected as per Ext.P3 Government order and to give them appointment as contingent workers as per their seniority after the list of substitute workers selected from the employment exchange in terms of Ext.P3 Government order gets exhausted. It is the contention of the petitioners that it is in violation of Exts.P3 and P4 that the present appointments are made.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent municipality mainly contending that the engagement of the petitioners as temporary workers was necessitated to meet the unprecedented crisis that evolved due to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and the municipality had to engage the petitioners and others on daily wage basis to do sanitation work for smooth functioning of the quarantine centres on a purely temporary basis. The Government has granted permission for engaging such workers as per G.O.(Rt) No.762/2020 dtd. 18/4/2020 and G.O.(Rt) No.1065/2020/LSGD dtd. 5/6/2020 produced as Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). Based on the said Government orders, resolution No.1 dtd. 1/6/2020 was passed by the Municipal Council to engage the temporary contingent workers on a daily wage basis till the COVID-19 pandemic situation is over. The appointment of contingent workers in local bodies is being made as per guidelines in G.O. (MS) No.14/82/LBR dtd. 22/4/1982 (Ext.P3 Government Order in W.P.(C) No. 21141 of 2023) and Circular No. 2591/M1.A4/82/LA and SWD dtd. 27/1/1982. The guidelines provided for a detailed selection process by a committee consisting of the Municipal Chairman, Secretary, Health Officer, etc. in the case of municipalities. Following the above guidelines in the Government Orders in this regard, the interview of 729 candidates in the list sent by the employment exchange was conducted by the committee. Out of the rank list prepared on the said list, orders are issued to appoint them as substituted workers initially against 83 sanctioned posts of contingent workers which was done observing the reservation parameters and that after completion of probation, they will be appointed against the permanent post according to seniority and availability of vacancies. The petitioners cannot continue as they were appointed randomly without following any of the procedures to tide over the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Going by the Government order and circulars stated above, the number of probable vacancies as to permanent contingent workers should be taken into consideration and they should be employed on a daily basis at first as substitute workers. The allegation that the municipality is attempting to select another set of temporary employees in the place of the petitioners is not correct and therefore, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the Piara Singh 's case cited supra will not apply to the facts of the present case.