K.RAMAKRISHNAN v. LEKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH & ORS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 4800 of 2016 (Y)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **K.RAMAKRISHNAN KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE(VILVAN) LEKKIDI P.O, PALAKKAD 679 301** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.C.P.SABARI SRI.H.MAHADEVAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** ## **1. LEKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,LEKKIDI P.O, PALAKKAD 679 301** **2. LEKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, LEKKIDI P.O, PALAKKAD 679 301** **3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** **4. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR, PALAKKAD 679 301** **ADDL.RESPONDENT:** **5. GRAMA VIKASANANA COMMISSIONER & MISSION DIRECTOR, GRAMA VIKASANA COMMISSIONARATE, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, TC 26/1333(2) PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-1.** **ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4.3.2016 IN I.A.NO.2937/2016 IN THE WRIT PETITION. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.E.SAJAL R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-09-2016 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.6693/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 4800 of 2016 (Y)** **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 29-03-2012** **EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 06-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR** **EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30-01-2016 OF THE MEETING WITH AGENDA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.1.2016** **EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS).NO.1876/12/LSGD DATED 5.7.2012.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.** **------------------------------W.P.(C).NOS.4800, 6693, 6699, 11586, 18508, 18861, 19241, 20306, 20613, 21663, 22059, 22108, 23862, 24602, 27289 & 29061 OF 2016** ## **----------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of September, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** As all these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are persons, who were appointed as Overseers/Accountant cum Data Entry Operators by the respondent Panchayats, in connection with the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme [MGNREG Scheme]. It is stated that, as per the terms of the Scheme, the Panchayats were to receive funds from the Central Government for the purposes of implementing the Scheme, and in this connection, they were also empowered to make appointments of Overseers/Accountant cum Data Entry Operators, on contract basis. The contract of appointment entered into between the petitioners and the respondent Panchayats indicate that the appointment is for one year, and the petitioners are persons, who worked for the period mentioned in the contract, and in some cases, persons who worked on **W.P.(C).No.4800/2016 & con. cases** **2** extended periods, pursuant to execution of separate contracts for the subsequent periods. In the writ petitions, they impugn the decisions taken by the respondent Panchayats, not to extend their contract for a further period, after the expiry of the period under the last contract executed with them. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners also impugn the notifications issued by the respective Panchayats, inviting applications from candidates for appointment as Overseer/Accountant cum Data Entry Operator, on contract basis, for future periods. It is their contention in the writ petitions, that, by a Government order No.47/16/LSG dated 3.3.2016, the Government had decided to extend the contract period for appointment of Overseers/Accountant cum Data Entry Operators, from one year to two years. They contend, therefore, that inasmuch as the Government order contemplates an extension of the period, for which employees were to be engaged on contract basis, the extended period of two years should be read into their existing contracts, and when so read, they would be entitled to continue, in terms of the contract, up to 31.3.2017. The prayer in the writ petitions, is for quashing the decisions taken by the respondent Panchayats, not to renew their contracts, and for a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service, till 31.3.2017, and, **W.P.(C).No.4800/2016 & con. cases** **3** further, that their services cannot be terminated without the consent of the Mission Director under the MGNREG Scheme or the State Government. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent Panchayats, wherein the stand taken is that under the MGNREG Scheme, the prior approval of the Government is contemplated only in a situation where the termination of services of a person is prior to the expiry of the period mentioned in his contract of employment. It is pointed out that, the petitioners having entered into a contract with the respondent Panchayats, wherein, the term of appointment was specified as one year, cannot seek a unilateral extension of the term of appointment without the consent of the respondent Panchayats. Referring to the Government order No.47/16/LSG dated 3.3.2016, it is stated that the said Government order cannot be seen as modifying the terms of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the respondent Panchayats, and the purport of the Government order is only to ensure that future contracts entered into by the respondent Panchayats are for a period of two years at a time. It is pointed out that a contract employee does not have a right to continue in the **W.P.(C).No.4800/2016 & con. cases** **4** services of the employer beyond the period mentioned in the contract. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petitions and also the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Panchayats in all these writ petitions. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter, the writ petitions must necessarily fail. It is by now well settled, pursuant to the decision of a five member Bench of the Supreme Court in **Secretary, State of - Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1],** that there is no right for those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim absorption in service. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioners, at the time of entering into the contract with the respondent Panchayats, were aware of the fact that the term of employment was only one year from the date of their initial appointment. Having accepted the terms of the contract without demur, it is not open to the petitioners to now contend that the term mentioned in the contract should be ignored, **W.P.(C).No.4800/2016 & con. cases** **5** and that they should be continued in employment even beyond the period mentioned in the contract. As a matter of fact, the petitioners would be estopped from taking such a contention. As regards the further contention of the petitioners with regard to the Government Order No.47/16/LSG dated 3.3.2016, I find that, in a contract entered into between the Panchayats on the one hand, and the petitioners on the other, the Government is not a party, and, therefore, a Government order, which contemplates an extended tenure for those appointed on contract basis, cannot be read into an existing contract, where the term of appointment is mentioned only as 'one year'. In other words, the Government order cannot have the effect of substituting the term indicated in the contract with the extended term that is contemplated in the Government order, more so, when a signatory to the contract, namely, the Panchayat, does not intend to extend the contract in any particular case. I am of the view that the Government order, referred to, can only be seen as instructing the Panchayats functioning under the MGNREG Scheme, to ensure that contract appointments, when made, are made for a period of two years at a time, prospectively from 3.3.2016. Petitioners have not been able to point to any provision, either statutory or contractual, **W.P.(C).No.4800/2016 & con. cases** **6** that indicates that the Panchayats in question are bound by the directions issued by the Government in the matter of engaging persons on contract basis under the MGNREG Scheme. Under such circumstances, the contention that the Government order had the effect of altering the conditions, in the contract entered into between the petitioners and the Panchayats, regarding tenure of appointment, cannot be legally countenanced. In the result, I find that the prayers sought for in the writ petitions, cannot be granted, and, hence, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Taking note of the apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, I make it clear that, nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the petitioners, either responding to fresh notifications calling for contract appointees, or seeking reliefs before any Grievance Redressal Authority, under the MGNREG Scheme. ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** prp/8/9/16