Rajesh T.V vs The Deputy Excise Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 10300 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO.26392 OF 2022
PETITIONERS :-

     1       RAJESH T.V.,
             THEKKEDATH HOUSE, MOOLANKAVE P.O., SULATHAN BATHERY,
             WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 592.

     2       SANTHOSH KUMAR,
             PATTIRETHU HOUSE, PUTHOORVAYAL P.O., PUTHOORVAYAL,
             KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673 592.

             BY ADV CELINE JOSEPH


RESPONDENTS :-

     1       THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
             WAYANAD, MUNDERI, KALPETTA POST,
             WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121.

     2       THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER [CORRECTED]
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

             "THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
             NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.,
             KERALA, PIN - 695 033"

             (ADDRESS OF R2 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED
             22.08.2022 IN I.A.1/2022 IN WP(C)26392/2022.)

     3       STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

             BY SRI.SUNIL KURIAKOSE, GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   07.10.2022,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.26392 OF 2022

                                     -: 2 :-


                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of October, 2022

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the termination order and all further proceedings.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the post held by him in the de-addiction centre, Wayanad as per Exhibit P1 order."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as security staff

in the De-addiction Centre, Wayanad by the 1 st respondent by

Ext.P1 order dated 2.3.2022. It is submitted that Ext.P1 order

of appointment as well as Exts.P2 and P3 which were the

undertakings executed by the petitioners specifically provides

that the period of appointment is for one year from the date of

appointment and that the petitioners will not raise any claims

for any benefits except for the pay for the days of work

rendered by them on the basis of Ext.P1. It is contended by WP(C) NO.26392 OF 2022

the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Ext.P1

order and Exts.P2 and P3 undertakings, the petitioners can be

discharged during the term of the contract only on the grounds

of misconduct or inefficiency and that too, after conducting an

enquiry. It is submitted that while so, from 13.8.2022, the

petitioners were not permitted to work. The petitioners

approached this Court and an interim order was granted,

directing the continuance of the petitioners.

4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the

1st respondent contending that the petitioners' appointment

was as security staff in the De-addiction Centre on contract

basis. It is submitted that De-addiction Centres were started

attached to the District Hospitals in each District. It is

submitted that security and cleaning staff was to be appointed

in these centres on outsourcing basis so that their services

could be discontinued to avoid unwanted expenditure in case

such services were rendered unnecessary. It is submitted that

the Centre was set up at the Old Block of the General Hospital,

Kalpetta in liaison with the New Block of the Government

General Hospital, Kalpetta. Later on, the District Medical

Officer (Health) vide proceedings dated 23.10.2021 advised the WP(C) NO.26392 OF 2022

shifting of the centre to the Old Block of the Taluk Hospital,

Sultan Batheri in view of the practical difficulties to provide IP

treatment at the Kalpetta centre. The Centre was shifted to

the Old Block of the Taluk Hospital, Sultan Batheri and an

additional amount of Rs.2,36,505/- was expended to enhance

the infrastructure of the old block. It is submitted that two

temporary posts of security persons was filled up by the 2 nd

respondent. It is submitted that appointment of Consulting

Psychiatrist could not be made even after several attempts.

Therefore, the IP Department was not functioning even after

providing all required essentialities. A decision was therefore

taken to stop the functioning of the IP Section in the De-

addiction Centres and to use the funds for awareness and de-

addiction programmes at other places in the State. It is

contended that the petitioners were security staff appointed on

contract basis for the purpose of security in the IP Department

based on the list issued by the District Sainik Welfare Board

and since their appointment is purely temporary and on

contract basis, they are not entitled to continue in service once

the IP Department of the De-addiction Centre has stopped

functioning. It is contended that the termination of the WP(C) NO.26392 OF 2022

petitioners is only a termination of a contractual employment

simplicitor and that there is absolutely no need for the security

staff in view of the fact that the IP Department is not

functioning in the premises. It is submitted that in view of the

interim orders passed by this Court, the services of the

petitioners is retained by the Department without any work

and the petitioners are drawing salary without any work at all.

5. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record,

wherein, it is contended that Exts.P2 and P3 undertakings do

not contain any provision for a premature termination of the

services of the petitioners.

6. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is the

admitted case of the parties that the appointment of the

petitioners was as security personnel for the De-addiction

Centre at Sultan Batheri. Though Ext.P1 order of appointment

as well as Exts.P2 and P3 undertakings submitted by the

petitioners provide for a contractual appointment for a period

of one year, it is the specific case of the respondents that the

IP Department of the De-addiction Centre is no longer

functioning at Sultan Batheri and that therefore, there is no

requirement for the services of the petitioners therein. In the WP(C) NO.26392 OF 2022

above factual situation and in view of the fact that the payment

to the security workers is being done using public funds, I am

of the opinion that the direction to continue the services of the

petitioners, without any requirement, may not be justified.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion

that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be

granted. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/10.10.2022 WP(C) NO.26392 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26392/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 02/03/2022 OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, WAYANAD.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE STAMP PAPER DATED 04/03/2022 BEFORE THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, WAYANAD.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE STAMP PAPER DATED 11/03/2022 BEFORE THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, WAYANAD.