[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
A.R.Balagopalan vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:16865
1
W.A.No.1196 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 1196 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.14538 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 A.R.BALAGOPALAN, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O A.H.RANGANATHA KAMMATH, WORKING AS L.D.CLERK, DR.
PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE,CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. RESIDING AT
G4,MAHALAKSHMI GRUHASANGULAM,T.D.WEST, ERNAKULAM
[AGE OF IST PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS "57" INSTEAD OF
"52"AS PER ORDER DATED 28.03.2025 IN IA 02/2024 IN THE
WP(C)]PIN - 682035
2 L.NAGENDRA SHENOI, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O LAKSHMANA SHENOY,WORKING AS L.D.CLERK,DR. PADIYAR
MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE CHOTTANIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM , RESIDING AT MALIEYAKKAL HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD
P.O., CHERTHALA., PIN - 688531
3 R.RAJESH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O M.A.RAMACHANDRA PRABHU,
WORKING AS L.D.CLERK,DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC
MEDICAL COLLEGE,CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. RESIDING AT
8/704, REVATHY, TOWN HALL ROAD, KOOVAPPADAM, COCHIN.,
PIN - 682002
4 SANDHYA K, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O PRASANTH
PRABHU,L.D.CLERK, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC
MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM
THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE,GOPALAPRABHU ROAD, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 682035
5 SOBHA R, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O VISWAMOHANAN,L.D.CLERK DR.
PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
2026:KER:16865
2
W.A.No.1196 of 2025
COLLEGE,CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM ,RESIDING AT
19/34A,VENKATADRI, PALLURUTHY,KOCHI., PIN - 682006
6 GANESH BHATT R, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O GOKHALE G (LATE),
L.D.CLERK, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM , GOKULAM, KALATHIL
TEMPLE ROAD,AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
[AGE OF 6TH PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS "58" INSTEAD OF
"61"AS PER ORDER DATED 28.03.2025 IN IA 02/2024 IN THE
WP(C) ], PIN - 688534
7 SREEKALA B, AGED 58 YEARS, PHARMASIST,DR. PADIYAR
MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT SREEPADMAM, AMBADIMALA
MOPPATTUTHAZHAM ROAD, THIRUVAMKULAM
ROAD,CHOTTANIKKARA, PIN - 682312
8 SINDHU C.T, AGED 55 YEARS, PHARMASIST, DR. PADIYAR
MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM W/O SURESH BABU P.P., CHITTETH HOUSE,
RAMAMANGALAM P.O., THAMMANIMATTOM., PIN - 686663
9 DR.MARY K.S, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O SYRIAC,CHETTIYAMKUNNEL
HOUSE, PIRAVAM,WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER,DR. PADIYAR
MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM ., PIN - 682312
10 DR.SALOMY GEORGE, AGED 60 YEARS, MEDICAL OFFICER
(RETIRED),DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE,CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM .RESIDING AT
CHEMMAZHIKKAD HOUSE,VELIYANAD P.O.,
ARAKKUNNAM,PEPPATHY., PIN - 682313
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
(AYUSH), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .,
PIN - 695001
2 THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER.
GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
3 DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CHOTTANIKKARA,
2026:KER:16865
3
W.A.No.1196 of 2025
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682312
4 THE PRINCIPAL
DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE,CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682312
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.G.P
SMT.R.RANJANIE - R3 AND R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT
ON 27.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:16865
4
W.A.No.1196 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14538 of 2023 filed this writ
appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
challenging the judgment dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
appellants are working under the Hospital attached to the 3 rd
respondent College. The Government, while introducing the Direct
Payment System ('DPS' for short) in the College as early as in the
year 2000 and during staff fixation in 2002, certain employees,
including the appellants working under the Hospital, were
exempted from the purview of the DPS. 16 staff members in the
Hospital were included in the DPS. This exclusion of the appellants
was challenged before this Court, which resulted in Exts.P5
Judgment dated 03.03.2005 in O.P. No. 25592 of 2000 and P6
Judgment dated 17.06.2005 in W.A.No.1530 of 2004, whereby
this Court directed that the appellants also be included in the
approved staff list. The Government preferred a Special Leave
Petition against the above Judgment, which resulted in Ext.P7
Judgment dated 23.02.2009 in Civil Appeal No.1152-1153 of
2026:KER:16865
2009, whereby the Supreme Court found that the policy decision
of the Government to exclude the staff of the Hospital need not be
interfered with and hence the appellants were denied salary from
2009 December onwards.
2.1. Later, the Kerala State Human Rights Commission
issued Ext.P9 order dated 03.11.2012 to treat the appellants as
employees and to give the benefit under the Industrial Disputes
Act. By that time, the Management issued Ext. P10 order dated
31.12.2012, by which the employment of the appellants was put
an end. Hence, the appellants 1 to 3 preferred W.P.(C)No.606 of
2013 before this Court. At the time of admission of that writ
petition, this Court passed Ext.P11 Interim order ordering the
management to retain the appellants and the Government to
evolve a scheme for salary and allowances. The writ petition was
finally disposed of by Ext.P12 Judgment dated 30.10.2015, and
ordered to treat the appellants as employees eligible for the salary.
2.2. Accordingly, the Government also issued Ext.P13 order,
dated 11.05.2016, including the appellants under the direct
payment system. The Government then filed W.A.No. 1823 of
2017, challenging the judgment in Ext.P12, which resulted in
2026:KER:16865
Ext.P14 Judgment dated 21.06.2018 and the Division Bench of
this Court directed the appellants to prefer representation before
the Government for extending the period from 2000 onwards
instead of limiting it from 11-05-2016. Accordingly, the appellants
submitted Ext.P15 representation dated 10.07.2018 and the same
was considered by the Government, which rejected the same
through Ext.P16 order dated 02.04.2019. Hence, Ext.P16 was
challenged before this Court by preferring W.P.(C) No.20688 of
2019. This Court, through Ext.P19 Judgment dated 14.11.2022,
directed reconsideration of the entire issue by the Government,
taking note of the fact that the directions issued in Ext.P14
judgment have not been complied with, and the effect of Ext.P17
order dated 24.07.2012 in respect of a watcher of the Hospital
whereby the Government approved his appointment with effect
from 01.07.2008, was also not considered by the Government.
2.3. The Government now issued Ext.P21 order dated
21.01.2023, whereby the claim of the appellants is again rejected.
The specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P19 judgment to
consider Ext.P17 and its effect was not even adverted to the
Government. According to the Government, the staff strength of
2026:KER:16865
the College at the time of the introduction of DPS was on the
higher side than that of the other Colleges. Hence, the appellants
cannot claim an anterior date for their regularisation. Such
contentions were not at all there in the previous rounds of
litigation, and the Government is estopped from bringing any new
contentions. Apart from that, the finding arrived at is factually
incorrect, as it could be revealed from Ext.P21. In Ext.P21, the
Government granted approval for 63 non-teaching staff for
another Homoeopathic Medical College. So the contentions are
taken without any factual or legal basis by the Government. The
specific case of the appellants is that they are entitled to be in DPS
with effect from the date of Ext.P17. This issue was deliberately
omitted by the Government. Therefore, the appellants filed
W.P.(C)No.14538 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs,
directions or orders calling of the recording leading to
Exts.P20 and quash the same;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writs, orders or directions directing the respondents
to bring the petitioners under the direct payment
system with effect from 01.07.2008 in parity with
Ext.P17 order by changing the date fixed in Ext.P16
2026:KER:16865
from 11.05.2016 to 01.07.2008;
iii. Declare that Ext.P20 order issued by the
Government is in violation to the directions of this
Hon'ble Court in Ext.P19 judgment and hence it is
illegal".
3. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a counter affidavit
dated 06.02.2024 was filed in the writ petition opposing the reliefs
sought for. Paragraphs 8 to 14 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"8. It is submitted that the combined judgment on
21.06.2018 in W.A.Nos.1823 of 2017, 1973 of 2017, etc.
the Honourable division bench found that the question
asked to whether the petitioners would be entitled to any
benefits under Direct Payment System prior to 11.05.2016
to be looked into by the Government and again directed to
the petitioners to make a representation to the Government
highlighting the grievances within 15 days from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment. The petitioners filed
representation to the Government and they were heard in
person and Government complied the judgment as per
G.O.(Rt)200/2019/Ayush dated 0204.2019 and ordered
that the petitioners request for regularising their service
with effect from the date of implementation of Direct
Payment System in their college is not admissible hence
disposed the representation and rejected accordingly.
9. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent issued orders
appointing one Sri Vishnu Prasad as Watcher, as per
proceedings No.2026/C1/08/GHMCF dated 24.07.2012
2026:KER:16865
(Ext.P20 in WP(C)No.606 of 2013), in the scale of pay of
Rs.4510-6230 in the 3rd respondent Hospital w.e.f
01.07.2008. Later G.O(Rt) No. 130/2013 H&FWD dated
10.01.2013 (Ext.P21 in W.P.(C) 606 of 2013) was issued by
the Health & Family Welfare Department by which they have
disposed of the representation filed by Mr. Vishnu Prasad
approving the said appointment. It can be seen from the
said order that the said appointment was in the vacancy
created by the re-designation of one Sri. K.N Pradeep
Kumar as Peon which arose due to the demise of one Sri.
Trideep. It was subject to the condition that as and when
the legal heirs of the aforesaid Sri. Trideep approaches for
appointment on compassionate ground, the Government to
consider such application after completing all legal
formalities and for that purpose a suitable post be spared
in the college or hospital. It was further provided that if such
post is not available, Junior most of the relevant category
be thrown from the Direct Payment System giving
opportunity to such applicant.
10. It is submitted that the 9th Petitioner came under the
Direct Payment System in the 3rd respondent hospital
w.e.f.11.05.2016 and Government as per GO(Rt)
No.200/2019 Ayush dated 02.04.2019 ordered to count the
service of the petitioners only from 11.05.2016. Hence the
9th petitioner's past service and the leave & other service
benefits could be counted only from that date i.e.,
11.05.2016. Since the 9th petitioner has no enough leave at
credit she must repay the excess money drawn by availing
Earned Leave.
2026:KER:16865
11. It is submitted that the Government and others filed
Writ Appeal against the judgement in W.P.(C)No.16437 of
2009 and the same is numbered as W.A.No. 715 of 2019 is
under the consideration of Hon'ble High Court.
12. It is submitted that the averments of the petitioners in
the above paras and the entire W.P.(C) is not valid as per
DPS order and DPS agreement. When Direct Payment
System was implemented in petitioner's college, the
hospital hadn't come under the purview of this system. On
the basis of various judgments some employees of the
Hospital came under this system. It was the policy decision
of the Government on the basis of various judgments. On
the basis of the facts revealed in various paragraphs above,
all the decisions in this regard are taken by the approval of
the Government. Hence the arguments of the petitioners
are not sustainable. As per the directions given in the
Interim Order 25.04.2023 of this WP(C), the matter is
informed to the 2nd respondent not to deduct the
contribution from the salary of the petitioners towards
National Pension Scheme.
13. It is submitted that Ext.P20 order issued by the
Government has not Violated the directions in Ext.P19
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Ext.P14
judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court. As per
Ext.P17 order one Sri. Vishnu Prasad appointed in the post
of Watcher in the 3rd respondent Hospital subject to the
condition that as and when the legal heir of Sri. Trideep C
(Late) approaches for appointment on Compassionate
ground, the Management will take suitable action as per the
2026:KER:16865
decision of the Government to consider such application
after completing all legal formalities. For this purpose a
suitable post has to be spared in the College or Hospital. If
such a post is not available, the junior most of the relevant
category should be thrown out from Direct Payment System
giving opportunity to such applicant. So the argument of
the petitioner to consider the issue in the light of Ext.P17
order is unsustainable.
14. The main contention of the petitioners is to regularise
their service with effect from the date of appointment
(01.01.2000) with all consequential benefits. These
petitioners were included in Direct Payment System from
11.05.2016 and hence their service is only from
11.05.2016. So the petitioners' request for regularising
their service with effect from the date of implementation of
the Direct Payment System is not admissible".
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials
on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment
dated 21.05.2025 dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 5 to 5.2
and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:
"5. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2009 cancelling the
Direct Payment System as supernumeraries to the
petitioners, three petitioners out of nine filed W.P.(C) No.606
of 2013 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this
Court vide Order dated 08.01.2023 directed the State
Government to hold negotiations with the College and the
petitioners and evolve a system to ensure payment of salary
and allowances to the petitioners, having regard to the fact
2026:KER:16865
that their appointments were lawfully made based on need
in Dr Padiyar Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College. An
appropriate decision was to be taken by the Government
within a period of one month. The petitioners were also
directed to work without claiming salary and allowances.
5.1 The said writ petition was finally decided vide judgment
dated 30.10.2015, and the petitioners were held to be
entitled to salary, which was to be paid by the Government.
The petitioners were allowed to sign the muster roll and
work. This judgment came to be complied with vide
Government Order dated 11.05.2016, and the petitioners
were brought into the Direct Payment System with effect
from the issuance of the Government Order dated
11.05.2016.
5.2 Against the decision of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No.606 of 2013 and other connected writ petitions,
the Government filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench
and the Division Bench vide judgment dated 21.06.2018,
disposed of the said Writ Appeals by observing as follows:
"22. Since we notice that the writ petitioners have
been serving in the hospital as early as from the year
1998-1999 and that they were paid salary, at least
until the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, on the scales applicable to those under the
DPS, we leave it open to the petitioners to approach
the competent Authority of the Government with an
apposite representation detailing all their claims and
to seek such reliefs, as they are desirous, within a
period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
2026:KER:16865
this judgment. If such a representation is received by
the competent Authority from the writ petitioners
within the time granted herein, it will be obligated to
consider the same, adverting specifically to the
contentions of the writ petitioners hinged on Exts.P20
and P21 Government Orders, produced in W.A.
No.1823 of 2017, as expeditiously as possible but not
later than four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
23. We clarify that we are not in any manner
concluding regarding the entitlement of the writ
petitioners' to the DPS benefit prior to 11.05.2016,
being the date of which the Government has issued
the present order, bringing them under the ambit of
DPS and we leave all such issues to be decided by the
Government, after hearing the petitioners
appropriately."
5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present
writ appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that in
Ext.P14 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court found that in
view of the subsequent decision, the Government has changed its
earlier policy or adopted a new one from the date of the said
2026:KER:16865
orders, which were produced as Exts.P20 and P21 in that writ
appeal. Therefore, the Government ought to have given
regularisation to the appellants at least from 2008 onwards. This
issue, though specifically pleaded, was omitted to be taken note
of by the learned Single Judge. By Ext.P17 order, the Government
had approved the appointment made in the Hospital to the post of
Watcher with effect from 01.07.2008. But in Ext.P20 order dated
29.03.2023, there was no reference to Ext.P17 order, though this
Court repeatedly directed to consider the issue in the light of
Ext.P17 order. The learned Single Judge went wrong in holding
that the appellants were not permanent employees of the
College/Hospital. Similarly, the learned Single Judge went wrong
in relying upon the finding in Ext.P20 Government order pertaining
to excess staff in the College. In fact, the Government has no such
case at any point in time, and moreover the appellants had
produced Ext.P21 order issued by the Principal and Controlling
Officer of the Government Homoeopathy Medical College dated
21.01.2023 to substantiate that the staff are not in excess when
compared to other Homoeopathy Medical Colleges which were
brought under the DPS. It is revealed from Ext.P21 that the
2026:KER:16865
Government had granted approval for 63 non-teaching staff with
effect from the date of the introduction of DPS in the 3 rd
respondent College.
8. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would
submit that it is in pursuance of Ext.P12 judgment dated
30.10.2015 in W.P.(C)No.606 of 2013 and connected cases, the
Government included the appellants in DPS as per Ext.P13 order
dated 11.05.2016. Therefore, we need not go back to the stage
prior to 11.05.2016.
9. The learned Senior Government pleader would submit
that Ext.P20 order issued by the Government has not been
violated either Ext.P14 or Ext.P19 judgments. Ext.P17 order was
one pertaining to an appointment in the post of Watcher in the 3rd
respondent Hospital, subject to the condition that, as and when
the legal heirs of a deceased employee approached on
compassionate grounds, the management will take suitable action
as per the decision of the Government to consider such application
after completing all legal formalities. For this purpose, a suitable
post has to be spared in the College or Hospital. If such a post is
not available, the junior-most of the relevant category should be
2026:KER:16865
thrown out of DPS, giving an opportunity to such an applicant.
Therefore, the issue cannot be considered in the light of Ext.P17
order as contended by the appellants.
10. We have carefully perused the pleadings and materials
on record and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar.
The appellants, who were employed as daily wage LD Clerks,
Pharmacists and Medical Officers, respectively, in the Hospital
attached to the 3rd respondent College, have been litigating from
the year 2000 onwards, challenging their exclusion from the DPS,
which was introduced by the Government in the College with effect
from 01.01.2000. The litigations mooted by the appellants can be
divided into two stages, that is, the first one till Ext.P7 judgment
of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1152 - 1153 of 2009 and the
second one from Ext.P13 order dated 11.05.2016 of the
Government, including them in the DPS.
11. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 03.03.2005 in O.P No.25592
of 2000, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the
Government to consider the case of 11 petitioners in that original
petition, including the appellants herein also, for granting similar
treatment as meted out to others, vide Government Orders dated
2026:KER:16865
06.10.2000 and 25.01.2002. The writ appeal filed by the
Government against Ext.P5 judgment ended in dismissal, vide
Ext.P6 judgment dated 17.06.2005 in W.A.No.1530 of 2004.
However, by Ext.P7 judgment dated 23.02.2009, the SLP
Nos.19951 of 2005 and 19952 of 2005 filed by the Government
against Exts.P5 and P6 judgments were allowed. In Ext.P7
judgment, the Apex Court held that the Court could not direct over
inclusion of the staff as it involves financial implications.
12. In view of Ext.P7 judgment of the Apex Court, the
Government, by Ext.P8 order dated 18.12.2009, excluded the
appellants from the post of supernumeraries and rejected the
request for disbursing arrears of salary for the period from
01.01.2001 to 31.12.2004. Thereafter, the 5th appellant made a
complaint before the Human Rights Commission and by Ext.P9
proceedings dated 03.11.2012, the Human Rights Commission
held that the appellants should be paid salary-wages as notified
under the minimum wages for hospital and their services cannot
be dispensed with except by the procedure under the Industrial
Disputes Act. They should be allowed to sign the register. On
receipt of Ext.P9 proceedings, the college issued an order dated
2026:KER:16865
31.12.2012 regarding cessation of service of the appellants. The
appellants 1 to 3 challenged the decision of the college by filing
W.P(C)No.606 of 2013 before this Court. By Ext.P11 interim order
dated 08.01.2013, the learned Single Judge directed the
management to retain the appellants 1 to 3 and the State of
Kerala was directed to hold negotiations to evolve a scheme for
salary and allowances to the appellants. Thereafter, vide Ext.P12
judgment dated 30.10.2015, W.P(C)No.606 of 2013 and
connected cases were allowed by this Court declaring that the
appellants 1 to 3 are entitled to salary as in the case of the other
16 employees employed in the hospital who are being paid salary
by the Government. It was thereafter, Ext.P13 Government Order
dated 11.05.2016 was passed, including the appellants in DPS as
per the conditions laid down in G.O.(MS) No.99/2013/H & FWD
dated 22.03.2013.
13. Even after the issuance of Ext.P13 order, Ext.P12
judgment was challenged by the Government in W.A.No.1823 of
2017. By Ext.P14 judgment dated 21.06.2018, the Division Bench
of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal holding that the
question as to whether the appellants would be entitled to any
2026:KER:16865
benefit under the DPS for the period prior to 11.05.2016 is a
matter to be looked into by the Government. In Ext.P14 judgment,
this Court directed the appellants to make a representation to the
Government highlighting the grievances and the Government was
directed to consider the same, taking into account the
Government orders produced as Exts.P20 and P21 in that writ
appeal. Though the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.606 of 2013
preferred an SLP before the Apex court challenging Ext.P14
judgment and a curative petition against the orders in Civil Appeal
No.1152 of 2009, both ended in dismissal.
14. In compliance with the directions issued in Ext.P14
judgment, all the appellants, except the 10th appellant, submitted
Ext.P15 representation dated 10.07.2018, which resulted in
Ext.P16 order dated 02.04.2019 by which the Government
declined the claim of the appellants to regularise their service with
effect from the date of appointment with all consequential
benefits. In Ext.P16 order, the Government took into consideration
the fact that the date of effect of service of the appellants is only
from 11.05.2016 by virtue of Ext.P13 order and hence their
service cannot be regularised with effect from the date of
2026:KER:16865
implementation of DPS. Thereafter, some of the appellants filed
W.P.(C)Nos.20688 of 2019 and 32496 of 2019 before this Court,
challenging Exts.P16 and P18. By Ext.P19 judgment dated
14.11.2022, this Court directed the Government to take a decision
for the inclusion of the appellants in the DPS prior to 11.05.2016.
Thereafter, the impugned Ext.P20 order was passed by the
Government rejecting the claim of the appellants.
15. As discussed above, by Ext.P7 judgment, the Apex
Court had already rejected the claim of the appellants for inclusion
in the DPS. It was thereafter Ext.P13 order was passed by the
Government in pursuance of the directions in Ext.P12 judgment of
this Court. Even after that Ext.P12 judgment was challenged by
the Government in a writ appeal, which resulted in Ext.P14
judgment.
16. The appointment of the appellants was as daily wage
employees. The DPS was introduced in the college as per Ext.P1
order dated 25.04.2000 of the Government. However, the claim of
the appellants was not considered favourably by the Government,
till Ext.P13 order on 11.05.2016. Though there is an observation
in Ext.P14 judgment that there is a change in the policy of the
2026:KER:16865
Government even in the year 2008, the filing of writ appeal
against Ext.P12 judgment even after Ext.P13 order would show
that the Government had not taken any stand against the policy
decision which was noted by the Apex Court in Ext.P7 judgment.
Therefore, the aforesaid observation in Ext.P14 judgment can
only be treated as an obiter dicta. Hence, the appellants can
claim the benefit of regular appointment only with effect from
Ext.P13 order dated 11.05.2016. The learned Single Judge has
correctly analysed these aspects and passed the impugned
judgment.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold
the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as perverse
or patently illegal, which warrants interference of this Court by
exercising appellate jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
