AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.N. Ravindran, J.—Common questions arise in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 24903 of 2004 was appointed as Typist Gr.II in the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Ltd, by Ext. P1 order dated 19.9.1984 for a period of six months or till a regular hand advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission joins duty, which ever is earlier. His appointment was in the scale of pay of Rs. 330-15-480-18-660. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 24989 of 2004 was also likewise appointed on 3.5.1984. After the expiry of the period of six months, their services were terminated. They were again re-appointed and they continued to serve the Corporation during various spells. While matter stood thus, by Ext. P2 order dated 4.6.1994 the Government permitted regularisation of 23 provisional employees including the petitioners. Thereupon, the Corporation issued Ext. P3 order dated 17.11.1994 regularising the services of the petitioners with effect from 8.10.1984 and 3.5.1984 respectively. It was inter alia stipulated in Ext.P3 that the date of the next increment will be calculated by taking into account their date of regularisation. It was also stated that the question of implementing the Government order dated 4.6.1994 with retrospective effect will be decided after getting clarification from the Government. It appears that reckoning the provisional service rendered by the petitioners, they were granted increments and grade promotions. On the ground that the petitioners were daily wage employees, the Corporation later took the stand that they are not entitled to count their provisional service for increments and grade promotions and issued Ext.P6 order dated 17.8.2004 cancelling the increments/grade promotions granted to the petitioners and others. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition.
The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that as daily wage employees, the petitioners were not eligible to have their provisional service reckoned for the purpose of grant of increments. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not heard before Ext.P6 order was passed. Though the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners were initially appointed on daily wage basis, Ext. P1 order produced in W.P (C) No. 24903 of 2004 discloses that the petitioner therein was appointed in a scale of pay and not on daily wage basis. From the pleadings and the submissions made at the Bar it is evident that the respondents have proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis. The petitioners were also not heard before Ext.P6 order was passed. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the Corporation should reconsider the issue.
I accordingly quash Ext. P6 in W.P (C) No. 24903 of 2004 and Ext. P4 in W.P (C) No. 24989 of 2004 in so far they relate to the petitioners in these two cases. The Corporation shall re-consider the matter after notice to and affording the petitioners herein an opportunity to state their case. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within six months from today. The Corporation shall after orders are passed as directed above, communicate copies thereof to the petitioners. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open.