Wilson Jacob, Junior Field Officer and Others vs The State of Kerala and Others

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 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.

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 on the principle of "no work, no pay".

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.