W.A. No. 863 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1940 WA.No. 863 of 2018 IN WP(C) 7449/2018 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 04.04.2018 IN WP(C) 7449/2018 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 VISWAMBHARAN P AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN P, OVERSEER, VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 333, RESIDING AT PUNATHIL HOUSE, KARAKKODE.P.O., MANIMOOLY, MALAPPURAM-679 333. 2 MATHEW SAMUEL AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, OVERSEER, VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 333, RESIDING AT KOYKKAL HOUSE, MAMANKARA, KUMBLAKLLU.P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 333. 3 M.NAFEESA AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.ASSAINAR, ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 333, RESIDING AT EDAKKATTIL HOUSE, MARUTHA.P.O., MANIMOOLI, MALAPPURAM-679 333. 4 A.JAMEELA AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.ISMAIL, ACCOUNTANT-CUM-DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 333, RESIDING AT ALUNGAL HOUSE, PADEMADU.P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 331. BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER & MISSION DIRECTOR MAHATHMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, FIRST FLOOR, PUNARJANI, T.C.26/1333(2), PANAVILA JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM.679 333. 4. SECRETARY VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM.679 333. 5. THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, VAZHIKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHIKKADAVU.P.O., MALAPPURAM.679 333. R BY SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR R1,2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.863/2018 ## APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.3.2018. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. ========================== W.A. No.863 OF 2018 ==========================** Dated this the 13[th] day of April, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** _Ravikumar, J._ This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.7449 of 2018. The appellants herein are the petitioners therein. Appellants 1 and 2 were appointed as Overseer on contract basis under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and presently, they are attached to the Vazhikkadavu Grama Panchayat. Appellants 3 and 4 are engaged as Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operators under the same scheme and they are also attached to the same panchayat. They approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition apprehending termination of their service contract to pave way for appointment of another set of temporary hands. They contend that such a proposal could not be sustained in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **State of Haryana and others** **W.A.863/2018** 2 **v. Piara Singh and others [(1992) 4 SCC 118]** . It is also their contention that despite the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1** , the decision of the Apex Court in **Piara Singh** 's case as regards the aforesaid question still holds the field. Certainly, it is a matter to be looked into, in the writ petition. In the light of the said decision, they contend that they cannot be displaced by another set of employees. It is the further contention that in such circumstances, the mere fact that their contract would expire on 31.3.2018 got no relevance as long as the scheme continues. It is contended that there is nothing on record which would reveal that the scheme is not now in force and according to them, it is still subsisting. The learned counsel for the appellants relying on Ext.P20 order passed by a Division Bench of this Court under similar circumstances contended that though normally, an appeal would not be entertained against the interim order in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in **K.S.Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358 (B)],** there is no inviolable position that no appeal **W.A.863/2018** 3 would lie against the interim order, under section 5 of the High Court Act. It depends upon the nature of the interim order, going by the said decision. Ext.P20 would reveal that under similar circumstances, taking note of the nature of the interim order, a Division Bench of this Court entertained an appeal against the interim order deciding to extend the period and extended it so as to enable consideration of the writ petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that three persons were appointed in place of the appellants/petitioners against the post of Overseer and Accountantcum-Data Entry Operator. At the same time, nothing is on record as to whether those appointees had received the orders of appointment and joined duty. In such circumstances, there will be an order to the effect that in case the substitutes of the appellants/petitioners had not already joined in the posts held by the appellants/petitioners, the **W.A.863/2018** 4 appellants/petitioners shall be allowed to continue in the post concerned till 8.6.2018. We request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition in the meanwhile. In the event of disposal of the writ petition, their right to continue till 8.6.2018 or thereafter, will depend on the outcome of the writ petition. Appeal is disposed of. **Sd/-** **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/MARY JOSEPH (JUDGE)** **spc/** //true copy// Sd/- P.A.to Judge **W.A.863/2018** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **W.A.863/2018** 6 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**