M V MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor at Ernakulam for a period of 3 years as per G.O.(MS) No. 158/92/Law dated 1-6-1992. While he was working as such, as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), Government issued Ext. P2, G.O.(MS) No.148/94/Law dated 27-5-1994 terminating his services invoking R.17 of the Rules. Petitioner questions the validity of that order. For a proper understanding of the effect of order dated 27-5-1994, I read its relevant portion:

(2.) R.17 of the Rules authorises Government to terminate appointment of any Government Law Officer other than Special Government Pleader or Special Public Prosecutor at any time before the expiry of the term of his appointment without assigning any reason therefor. But this Rule has got a proviso. It reads:

(3.) R.32 of the Rules deals with remuneration of Government Law Officers at District Court, Additional District Court and Sub Court Centres. They are being paid fees in accordance with the work turned out by them. They are not being paid any fixed salary. Only restriction on the payment is that contained in R.36 of the Rules. As per that Rule, the total amount of fees payable to a Government Law Officer at a District Court, Additional District or Sub Court Centre for a period of one year shall not exceed Rs.22,500/-. Thus, it is seen that a Government Law Officer at a District Court, Additional District Court or Sub Court Centre is getting fee depending on the work turned out by him. They are not being paid monthly salary.