High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-08-13The writ petition is allowed in part. The Direc...

Somadasan C. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 6110 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-08-13
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed in part. The Court directs the 2nd respondent, Director of Panchayats, to hear the petitioners, the Panchayat Secretary, and respondents 6 to 11, and to examine the Panchayat files where the minister’s instructions are available, culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 45 days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners’ status in service pending the enquiry is to be kept in mind during the process. The registry is to return the Panchayat file to the petitioners’ counsel for proper receipt.
Final Disposition: The writ petition is allowed in part. The Director of Panchayats is to hear the petitioners and other involved parties and examine the minister’s directive within 45 days to determine the appropriate order, with petitioners remaining in service during the proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Somadasan C.
Sreenivasan P.
P.R. Sivadasan
V. Arumukhan
R. Kaladharan
Subhash A

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of Panchayats, Thiruvananthapuram
The Deputy Director of Panchayats, Civil Station, Palakkad
The Mathur Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, Mathur (PO), Palakkad
The Secretary, Mathur Grama Panchayat, Mathur P.O, Palakkad
Parameswaran Arumbil, Ward No.2, Mathur Grama Panchayat, Mathur.P.O, Palakkad
Devadasan Thydiyakavu, Ward No.4, Mathur Grama Panchayat, Mathur.P.O, Palakkad
Krishnan C, Kunnamparambu, Ward No.8, Mathur Grama Panchayat, Mathur.P.O, Palakkad
Radhakrishnan R Kollad, Ward No.13, Mathur Grama Panchayat, Mathur.P.O, Palakkad
Gireesh Chenganiyur, Ward No.13, Mathur Grama Panchayat, Mathur.P.O, Palakkad
Vinod Kallamparambu, Ward No.11, Mathur Grama Panchayat, Mathur.P.O, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• U. Balagangadharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sajan Varghese K.
• Vinod Kumar C.
• Liju M.P.
• Jophy Pothen Kandankary
• Sunil Kumar KuriaKose

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns six pump operators who were engaged on an ad hoc basis by the Mathur Grama Panchayat, Palakkad, and whose services the Panchayat purported to terminate so as to appoint fresh ad hoc workers. The petitioners allege that such termination violates the declarations of law made by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others (1992) 4 SCC 118. Respondents 4 and others contend that the Panchayat acted within its powers and that the petitioners, who admit they were never substantively appointed (only daily or provisional), cannot challenge Ext. P7, which records the decision to appoint fresh personnel after following due procedure. The Government Pleader notes that if any ministerial instruction existed directing re-engagement, it cannot be ignored; a minister’s instruction is relevant to the legality of the Panchayat’s action. The judge reviews the minister’s instruction, finds substantial force in the argument that it could not be disregarded, and directs the Director of Panchayats to hear the petitioners, the Panchayat Secretary, and respondents 6 to 11, and to examine the files to determine an appropriate order. The directive requires a determination expeditiously, within 45 days of receiving the judgment. The court also records that respondents 6 to 11 remain in service pending such proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the Panchayat has acted recklessly by terminating their long‑standing ad hoc engagement and replacing them with new ad hoc workers, contrary to the ministerial directive to re‑engage those who have served for long and to follow due procedure. They challenge Ext. P7 as illegal and seek reversal of the Panchayat’s decision. They rely on the Supreme Court’s declarations in Piara Singh to argue for protection of service and regularization, and seek to quash any termination or replacement orders.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Panchayat acted within its statutory powers and followed due process; petitioners admit they were never substantively appointed, only on daily or provisional terms; Ext. P7 records internal ministerial directions, which, if valid, constrain disregard by the Panchayat; the matter should be considered by the Director of Panchayats under law and not by blanket judicial intervention.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others	[(1992) 4 SCC 118]	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioners as a legal principle but not applied as a binding rule in the judgment; used to illustrate the legal backdrop rather than as a direct ruling in this case.
WPC 3087/2021 (Judgment dated 08.02.2021)	WPC No. 3087/2021	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P15 contains a prior judgment of this Court cited in the appendix; referenced but not central to the current dispositive reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Somadasan C. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 SOMADASAN.C AGED 53 YEARS S/O CHAMUNNI, RAMPARAMBU HOUSE, PALLANCHATHANUR (PO), PALAKKAD-678571. 2 SREENIVASAN .P. AGED 53 YEARS S/O PAZHANI, ALAMTHODU VEEDU, THACHAMKADU P.O., MATHUR, PALAKKAD-678571. 3 P.R.SIVADASAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, ANIKODE, KARIYAMKODE (PO), PALAKKAD-678572. 4 V.ARUMUKHAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O VELLA, MOOCHIKKAL VEEDU, PALLANCHATHANOOR (PO), PALAKKAD678571. 5 R. KALADHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, AMBAD VEEDU, PALLANCHATHANOOR (PO), PALAKKAD-678571. 6 SUBHASH.A, AGED 38 YEARS S/O APPUKUTTAN, PALLIKKALAM VEEDU, PALLANCHATHANOOR (PO), PALAKKAD-678571. BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 2** ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS CIVIL STATION, PALAKAKD-678001. 4 THE MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MATHUR (PO), PALAKAKD-678571. 5 THE SECRETARY, MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR P.O, PALAKAKD-678571. 6 PARAMESWARAN ARUMBIL, WARD NO.2, MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR.P.O, PALAKAKD678571. 7 DEVADASAN THYDIYAKAVU, WARD NO.4, MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR.P.O, PALAKAKD678571. 8 KRISHNAN.C, KUNNAMPARAMBU, WARD NO.8, MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR.P.O, PALAKAKD-678571. 9 RADHAKRISHNAN.R KOLLAD, WARD NO.13, MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR.P.O, PALAKAKD678571. 10 GIREESH CHENGANIYUR, WARD NO.13, **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 3** MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR.P.O, PALAKAKD678571. 11 VINOD KALLAMPARAMBU, WARD NO.11, MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR.P.O, PALAKAKD678571. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. VINOD KUMAR.C SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY GP. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 4** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners say that they have been working on an _adhoc_ basis as Pump Operators in the services of the 4[th] respondent - Mathur Grama Panchayat; and that, instead of regularizing their services, the said Panchayat has now resolved to terminate them, so as to appoint fresh hands, again on _adhoc_ basis. The petitioners say that respondents 6 to 11 have thus been appointed and they contend that this is in violation of the declarations of law by the Hon’ble Supreme court in _**State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others [(1992) 4 SCC 118].**_ 2. In response, Shri.Sajan Varghese K., learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent, submitted that the Resolution in question was adopted by the Panchayat in valid exercise of powers and therefore, that the petitioners cannot challenge it, particularly because they themselves admit that they were never appointed substantively, but only on daily basis or in a provisional manner. He argued that, therefore,this writ petition is not deserving to be allowed, especially because, as is evident ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 5** from Ext.P7 decision of the Panchayat, they had decided to appoint fresh persons after following due procedure. 3. In reply, Shri.U.Balagangadharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, as is manifest from Ext.P7, the Panchayat has acted in a reckless manner because they themselves admit that the Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture had directed them not to terminate his clients' services and to reengage them appropriately. He submitted that the Panchayat has acted in complete disregard to the directions of the Hon’ble Minister and therefore, that Ext.P7 is illegal in law. 4. The learned Government Pleader, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, submitted that, though the State or its functionaries are not directly involved in this case, the fact that Ext.P7 records an instruction given to the Panchayat by the Hon’ble Minister, is a matter of some importance. He submitted that if the Hon’ble Minister had given any such instructions, then the Panchayat could not have disregarded it, as ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 6** has been recorded in the said resolution; and he added that therefore, the entire matter may be left to the 2[nd] respondent - Director of Panchayats to be considered as per law. **==> picture [405 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** parties as afore, I called for the original of the file from the 4[th] respondent – Panchayat, who have now handed it over across the Bar for my inspection. 6. From the the said file, I notice that the petitioners are right in asserting that the Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture had, in an Adalath, directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to re-engage the petitioners, who had worked for more than 15 years and that the earlier decision of the Panchayat had been set aside. The specific words employed by the Hon’ble Minister is as under: **==> picture [179 x 17] intentionally omitted <==** 15 വര്‍ഷതറലധറകമമായറ ജജമാലറ സചെയ്തു വരുന്ന അജപക്ഷകസരെ പറരെറച്ചുവറട്ട നടപടറ റദമാകറ തുടര്‍ന്നത ജജമാലറ സകമാടുക്കുവമാന്‍ ജവണ്ട നടപടറ സെസസ്വീകരെറക് .” ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 7** 7. When I see the afore instructions of the Hon’ble Minister from the files, it is clear that there is substantial force in the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the Panchayat could not have disregarded it in the manner as has been recorded in Ext.P7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the suggestion of the learned Government Pleader is worthy. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 2[nd] respondent - Director of Panchayats to hear the petitioners, the Secretary of the Panchayat as also respondents 6 to 11 – and to examine the files of the Panchayat, wherein the afore instructions of the Hon’ble Minister is available - thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I also record the submissions made on behalf of respondents 6 to 11, by their learned counsel Shri.Vinod Kumar, that his clients are still continuing in service; and therefore, this shall be **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 8** kept in mind by the 2[nd] respondent, while the afore exercise is completed. The Registry is directed to return the file produced by the Panchayat to Shri.Sajan Varghese K., their learned Standing Counsel, on proper receipt. **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** **MC/18.8** ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6110/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES RECOMMENDING| ||THE APPOINTMENT OF FIRST PETITIONER AS| ||PUMP OPERATOR DATED 31.01.2006.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES RECOMMENDING| ||THE APPOINTMENT OF 2 AND 3 PETITIONERS AS| ||PUMP OPERATOR DATED 25.06.2002..| |EXHIBIT P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES RECOMMENDING| ||THE APPOINTMENT OF 4 TO 6 PETITIONERS AS| ||PUMP OPERATOR DATED 02.07.2005.| |EXHIBIT P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE| ||FIRST PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||02.02.2012 OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING| ||NO.14/1 DATED 05.02.2021 OF THE FOURTH| ||RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.| |EXHIBIT P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING| ||NO 1/1 DATED 12.02.2021 OF THE FOURTH| ||RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.| |EXHIBIT P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED| ||BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2021.| |EXHIBIT P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST| ||PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 5.| |EXHIBIT P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND| ||PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND| ||5.| |EXHIBIT P11|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD| ||PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND| ||5.| ## **WP(C) NO. 6110 OF 2021 10** |EXHIBIT P12|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| |---|---| ||15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH| ||PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND| ||5.| |EXHIBIT P13|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH| ||PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND| ||5.| |EXHIBIT P14|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE SIXTH| ||PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND| ||5.| |EXHIBIT P15|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||08.02.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC| ||NO. 3087/2021.| |EXHIBIT P16|A TRUE COPY OF JOINT REPRESENTATION| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT ON 11.5.2021.|