NEETHU MOHAN O. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who were appointed in the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MNREG) Scheme, on contract basis, filed this writ petition alleging that their services were going to be terminated contrary to the direction in Ext.P8 order of Government issued on 03.03.2016.

(2.) The first petitioner joined as Accredited Engineer on 005.2013, 2nd petitioner joined as Overseer in April 2008 and 3rd and 4th petitioners joined as Accountant cum Data Entry Operators in April 2008 and on 17.08.201 They have been continuing in the Panchayat after executing agreements with the Panchayath from time to time every year. The last agreement was Ext.P6 and similar agreements executed on 2nd day of March 2016. The Government had issued Ext.P8 order on 03.03.2016, directing that Accredited Engineers, Draft man (Civil) , Accountant cum Data Entry Operators, I.T professionals etc., working on contract basis, under the MGNREG scheme shall have a tenure of 2 years instead of one year. Petitioners have been continuing on the basis of Ext.P8 order. Petitioners filed this writ petition, in April 2017, alleging that there was an attempt to terminate their services on political grounds, in violation of Ext.P8 order. Petitioners relied on Ext.P9 order issued by Government in the year 2012, authorising the Rural Development Commissioner to take a decision on the question of termination of services and directing the respective Grama Panchayaths that the services of the Assistant Engineers, Overseers, Accountant cum Data Entry Operators, etc., shall be terminated only on prior approval from the Rural Development Commissioner and saying that if they are sent out in bulk, it will affect the smooth functioning of the Scheme.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in July 2017 stating that the contract period in respect of the petitioners have already expired by 31.02016. It is stated that the period of appointment stipulated in the agreements Exts.R3(a) , (b) , (c) and (d) , which are the last agreements executed by petitioners was on 01.04.2015 and that the term of their contract appointment had expired on 31.02016. It is stated that there was no agreement with effect from 02.02016 as alleged by the petitioners. Ext.P8 order was issued at a time when the contract period of the petitioners was due to expire on 31.02016. In the light of Ext.P8 order, the period of contract stood extended till 31.02017; they were not entitled to continue any more as claimed by them in the writ petition, upto 31.02018, . It is stated that the petitioners could continue for one more year despite the terms of agreement in Ext.R3 series, on account of Ext.P8 order. It is stated that there is no question of renewal of contract and their term of appointment was determined at the time when they entered into the contract and it is not necessary to issue any order of termination.