BINUKUMAR R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these original petitions project similar nature of grievance and hence they are dealt with together. O.P.(KAT).No. 122 of 2017 which arises from O.A.No.2506 of 2016 is taken as lead case and reference is made to the pleadings and proceedings given in the said original petition, except where separate reference is made with reference to the context.

(2.) The petitioners were sponsored by the employment exchange at Thiruvananthapuram for being appointed as Junior Health Inspector-Grade-II, on a provisional basis, as per Annexure-A1 dated 18.08.2015 in a pay scale based on the requisition made by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram- the employer/requisitioning authority. The said engagement was originally for a period of six months, which was subsequently extended by another six months under similar terms and conditions. This came to be extended further, for a period of three months on 05.08.2016, still on a scale of pay. But thereafter, the engagement was for three months as per Annexure-A5 dated 20.08.2016. At this time instead of a specific pay scale, the engagement was on 'daily wage' basis. This made the petitioners to submit Annexure-A6 representation before the Government requesting for granting a pay scale as they were given earlier.

(3.) While so, the petitioners moved the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2230 of 2016 apprehending termination of their service. The said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal as per Annexure-A8 order, directing the Government to consider and finalise the representation which was pending consideration before them. When the matter was pending consideration, the petitioners being more apprehensive, approached the Tribunal once again by filing O.A.No.2506 of 2016. When the said matter was pending consideration the Government finalized the representation by passing Ext.P2 order based on the information furnished by the authorities concerned, including the District Environmental Officer and also the requisitioning authority; observing that there was no vested right for the petitioners to continue in service for ever and that opportunity had to be given to other persons as well, who were waiting in queue, that too by following rules of reservation. Copy of the said order was produced before the Tribunal, whereupon the Tribunal finalized the original application, in turn passing Ext.P3 order dated 27.02.2017 dismissing the original application. This made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing these original petitions.