REMIA MATHEW Vs. VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners have been working as Office Assistants in the 1st respondent- the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam ('Council' for short). They have filed this writ petition challenging the termination of their services as per Exts.P9 to P9(b) and similar orders.

(2.) The petitioners were initially engaged in the Council on daily wages. While working so, their services were sought to be terminated in the year 2008 and they had approached this Court in a series of writ petitions challenging those orders. But those writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment Ext.R3B. The petitioners challenged that judgment in W.A.Nos.574, 575 and 580 of 2009. During the pendency of those writ Appeals, petitioners were appointed as per orders similar to Ext.P1 issued on 23.05.2014 on contract basis. Though the appointment was initially for a period of one year on contract basis, it was likely to be extended to two years from 1.1.2014, subject to the review of their performance. While they were continuing so, their services were regularised w.e.f 1.1.2015, as per Ext.P2 order issued on 13.07.2015, in the post of Management Assistants and Office Assistants in the scale of pay of Rs.9190-15780 and Rs.8730- 13540 respectively. As per judgment dated 18.09.2015, the Writ Appeals filed by them were closed recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Council that the petitioners were regularised. Thereafter, their probation was declared on completion of one year service as per Ext.P3 and similar orders. While continuing so, the respondents issued Ext.P4 order on 6.10.2016, abruptly terminating their services, on the basis of a decision taken in the 76th Director Board Meeting of the 1st respondent held on 26.09.2016. Immediately, thereupon they filed W.P(c).No.32780 of 2016 before this Court and while continuing on the strength of interim orders, the respondents filed a counter affidavit admitting the illegality in terminating their services and seeking permission to withdraw the orders of termination with liberty to initiate appropriate steps as per rules against their illegal appointments. The writ petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 16.02.21017, in the light of the statement contained in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, granting liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate legal steps against the illegal appointment and regularisation of the petitioners.

(3.) Thereafter show cause notices like Ext.P7 were issued to the petitioners, pointing out the following irregularities found by the Board in the appointment of the petitioners: