AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners in these cases - which have all been heard together on account of similarity of the factual circumstances pleaded and the identical
nature of the reliefs sought â€" are stated to be working, both permanently and on contract, with the Attappady Hills Area Development Society
(AHADS for short)Agali, Palakkad. They have approached this Court seeking arrears of salary, as also benefits of medical allowance and leave
surrender, alleging that same have not been disbursed to them on account of certain untenable objections raised by the Finance Department. The
petitioners, therefore, pray that these benefits be directed to be disbursed to them at the earliest.
I notice that, on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners - Shri.Lindons C.Davis, on 04/01/2021, this Court had directed the learned
Government Pleader - Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose to obtain instructions as to why the medical allowances and leave surrender benefits have not been
disbursed to the petitioners, after recording his submission that the arrears of salary had already been disbursed.
Today, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader, submits that, going by the terms of engagement of the petitioners, they were all
on contract or on daily wages and therefore, that they are not entitled to medical allowances or leave surrender benefits, though some of them may
have been entitled to medical reimbursement as per the extant Rules and Regulations, provided they were appointed to sanctioned posts. He, however,
asserted that none of the petitioners in these cases were appointed to sanctioned posts and therefore, that, except salary, they are not entitled to
medical allowances or leave surrender benefits. He, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be closed.
In reply, Shri.Lindons C.Davis, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that he has produced details of the employees under the AHADS as
Ext.P7 in W.P(C)No.12319 of 2019, to point out that some of the petitioners herein were appointed on a permanent basis, while others were appointed
only on contract/daily wage basis. He conceded that in the case of those petitioners who have been appointed on contract/daily wage basis, they are
not entitled to medical allowances or surrender of leave benefits but that, as regards those who are appointed permanently, they are certainly entitled
to such benefits, going by Ext.P7. Shri.Lindons C.Davis, therefore, prayed that respondents be directed to pay such benefits to those petitioners who
were appointed permanently.
When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the stand of the Government, as voiced by the learned Government Pleader,
Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, is that none of the petitioners in these cases were appointed permanently or to sanctioned posts and therefore, that
except salary, they are not entitled either to medical allowances or to leave surrender benefits; while Shri.Lindons C.Davis - learned counsel for the
petitioners, contends to the contrary with respect to some other petitioners, however, without specifying who among them are so permanently
appointed.
It is, therefore, obvious that there is dispute regarding the facts, which cannot be resolved by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, going by the well recognized constraints of jurisdiction in dealing with disputes in the factual realm.
I am, therefore, of the firm view that if any of the petitioners have a case that they were appointed permanently and to sanctioned posts, then they
must approach the competent Authority with a request for disbursement of their medical allowances and leave surrender benefits; and if this is done
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the competent Authority will consider the same, taking note of
Ext.P7 in W.P(C)No.12319 of 2019 and after hearing each of them â€" either physically or through video conferencing.
These writ petitions are ordered on the afore lines.