SHAIK DAVOOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed challenging the judgment dtd. 4/4/2025 in W.P.(C) No.44581 of 2024 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C) and respondents were the respondents therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P.(C).

(2.) The Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P4 and for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service of the 2nd respondent viz., the Kerala State Poverty Eradication Mission (Kudumbashree), till the attainment of the age of 58 years or till cessation of the project. By Ext.P4, the 1st respondent had informed the 3rd respondent that since the appointment of Kudumbashree employees is on a contract basis under Rule 9 of the KS & SSR and since the service of contract employees is to be terminated on completion of contract period, it was not possible to extend the term of the contract employees in accordance with the retirement age of regular employees. The request made to extend the service duration of the contract employees of Kudumbashree was thus declined.

(3.) The learned Single Judge had in the impugned judgment, after taking note of the fact that the petitioner's engagement had not been renewed after he completed 56 years of age, which is the age limit prescribed by the Government for drivers, concluded that the petitioner was employed on contractual basis and the terms and conditions of contract does not stipulate that the petitioner shall continue till the project of Mission gets completed. There are three eventualities mentioned in clause 1 for termination of the contract and completion of the project is one among them. Since the respondent had decided not to continue the petitioner after he had attained the age of 56 years, the same being the age of retirement for the Government drivers and such decision was in terms of the agreement, the learned Judge concluded that there is no error of law in taking such a decision as seen in Ext.P4. Holding thus, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner impugns the same in this appeal.