IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2688 of 2009()
1. WILSON JACOB, JUNIOR FIELD OFFICER,
... Petitioner
2. C.VENUGOPALAN, ASSISTANT SECURITY
3. V.V.VASU, FIELD SUPERVISOR,
4. V.K.CHANDU, -DO- -DO-
5. A.T.BALAN, -DO- -DO-
6. K.R.SASI, -DO- -DO-
7. R.RAMUNNI, -DO- -DO-
8. P.PRABHAKARAN, -DO- -DO-
9. A.M.GOPALAN, -DO- -DO-
10. C.RAMACHANDRAN, -DO- -DO-
11. K.KRISHNAN, -DO- -DO-
12. K.T.MANIYAN, -DO- -DO-
13. M.BALAKRISHNAN, -DO- -DO-
14. K.LEELAMMA, -DO- -DO-
15. A.M.CHANDRAN, -DO- -DO-
16. M.C.RAMANAN, -DO- -DO-
17. B.BALAN, -DO- -DO-
18. A.VELAYUDHAN, -DO- -DO-
19. A.CHIMBAN, -DO- -DO-
20. T.K.UNNI, -DO- -DO-
21. K.KUNKAN, -DO- -DO-
22. P.M.SUKUMARAN, -DO- -DO-
23. K.N.DAYAN, -DO- -DO-
24. N.PADMANABHAN, -DO- -DO-
25. P.ANILKUMAR, -DO- -DO-
26. V.HARIDASAN, -DO- -DO-
27. RAJAN K.CHANNAN, -DO- -DO-
28. E.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, LOWER DIVISON CLERK,
29. DAISAMMA JOSEPH, -DO- -DO-
30. K.T.RAMACHANDRAN, -DO- -DO-
31. K.RAGHAVAN, -DO- -DO-
32. K.MANORANJAN, TYPIST CUM CLERK,
33. P.VENU, -DO- -DO-
34. V.P.VENUGOPALAN, OFFICE MANAGER,
35. V.ACHUTHAN, PEON, -DO- -DO-
36. BHOJ BHADAR SINGH, SECURITY GUARD,
37. BUDHI BHADUR, -DO- -DO-
38. KUMAR SINGH, -DO- -DO-
39. POORNA BHADUR, -DO- -DO-
40. T.K.VELAYUDHAN, FIELD ASSISTANT,
41. ANNAN, -DO- -DO-
42. P.C.MANI, -DO- -DO-
43. P.P.RAJAN, -DO- -DO-
44. C.S.BASTIAN, -DO- -DO-
45. SEKHARAN, DRIVER, -DO- -DO-
46. N.PRABHAKARAN ADIYODI, CURINGMAN,
47. A.VASUDEVAN, BLACKSMITH,
48. K.SOMAN, WATCHMAN CUM COOK,
49. P.K.LEELA, MASALACHI, -DO- -DO-
50. P.SAHADEVAN, CARPENTER, -DO- -DO-
51. A.K.ANNAMMA, TYPIST, -DO- -DO-
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNETED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. THE SOUTH WAYNAD GIRIJAN JOINT FARMING
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :04/01/2010
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 2688 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Petitioners claim that they were employed in one of the
Co-operative Societies which stood governed by the provisions
of Ext.P1 Government Order. In terms thereof, the
Government came forward to provide assistance and
essentially salvage four projects under four different
Co-operative Societies which were for the purpose of Girijan
Communities. The projects were fundamentally implemented
by the Planning and Economic Affairs Department under the
Western Ghats Development Programme during the V & VI Five
Year Plan periods for the economic rehabilitation of tribals by
forming co-operative societies under Government auspices.
Thereafter the administrative control of those societies were
transferred from Economic Affairs Department to the
Agricultural Department to ensure technical supervision.
Ultimately, with the passage of time, the requirement of those
W.A.No. 2688 OF 2009
-:2:-
societies to be manned by personnel appointed on different
terms, became unnecessary. Since the societies fell to be
non-functional, the purpose of the Societies had essentially
worked out.
2. Petitioners made the technical plea that they have not
been terminated from service, as understood in law, nor
retrenched and therefore they are entitled to pay for the period
during which they continued on the rolls and were permitted to
sign the attendance register. The admitted case of the
petitioners is that though they signed the attendance register,
they had not done any work. It may be true that formal
termination was done only at a later point of time. But, taking
the overall situation of the societies into consideration and all the
relevant facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised the
discretion by rejecting the petitioners’ request and has
categorically stated in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment
that no issue relating to the reinstatement arises and the
petitioners’ claim for salary for the period during which they were
alleged to be kept out of employment could be considered only
W.A.No. 2688 OF 2009
-:3:-
on the principle of “no work, no pay”.
3. On the facts, the learned Judge held that when the
petitioners had not admittedly worked for the period in question,
there is absolutely no reason to exercise the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution and to direct payment of salary for
that period, merely for the default on the part of the Government
or the Society in issuing a formal order dispensing with their
services, also like that of the labourers. The said decision of the
learned Single Judge is rendered in discretionary jurisdiction;
stating clear reasons, which according to us, require no
interference in appeal.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
ttb
W.A.No. 2688 OF 2009
-:4:-