1. These two Writ Petitions are posted before me for the reason that the Registry has declined to number them. According to the Registry, these Writ petitions are to be filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and not before this Court. In view of Notification No.A1 1649/2011 dated 21.12.2011, constituting the Kerala Administrative Tribunal w.e.f. 22.12.2011, the Registry has notified that cases falling within the jurisdiction of said Tribunal would not be entertained by this Court. Therefore, the Registry, disputed the stand that this Court lacked jurisdiction and requested that the matters be posted before the bench. Accordingly, these cases are posted before me and have been heard by me today.

2. According to Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar, counsel for the petitioner in ZWPC No: 2/2012, the petitioner in the said Writ Petition is working as a Health Inspector Grade II in the Palakkad Municipality and is an employee of the Municipality. His salary is paid by the Municipality. His appointing authority as well as disciplinary authority is the Municipality. Therefore it is contended that the subject matter of the said Writ Petition does not relate to service under the State.

3. According to Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., counsel for the petitioner in ZWPC No.3/2012, the petitioner is a Revenue Inspector in the Cochin Corporation. Her salary is paid by the Corporation and she is part of the Municipal Common Service, which is not a service under the Government. Therefore, the counsel in both the cases contend that the above Writ Petitions can be entertained by this Court.

4. My attention has been drawn by the Registry to an order dated 30.12.2011, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in ZWPC Nos: 374/2011. As per the said judgment, a matter relating to the service of an Assistant Engineer, Cheruppulasseri/Vellinezhi Grama Panchayat, in Palakkad District, was directed to be transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

5. However, a reading of the judgment shows that the petitioners in those cases were not employees of any Municipality, but were employees under the Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, this Court has held that said employees are Government Servants. Consequently, it is held that disputes relating to their service would have to be resolved by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The above being the position, the said decision can have no application to persons who are part of the Municipal Common Service. However, my attention has been drawn to the decision in Satheesan v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 705), wherein it has been held that members of the Kerala Municipal Common Service are holding posts in the Civil Service of the State. In view of the above decision of this Court, the counsel in these, cases were asked to make their submissions regarding the applicability of the dictum thereof to these cases.

6. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the decision of this Court, referred to above, is dated 15.10.1990. A reading of paragraph 4 of the judgment which contains the reasoning shows that the said case related to the Municipal Common Service constituted under S.90 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act 1961. It is contended by the counsel that the said Act has been repealed. Further, subsequent to the decision in Satheesan v. State of Kerala, the Constitution itself has been amended, Article 243 has been incorporated and the organizational set up of the Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayat have been drastically altered and restructured giving them greater autonomy and independence. Thereafter, in exercise of the power conferred by the said constitutional provisions, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 has been enacted, giving effect to the mandate of the constitution. It is under the new Municipality Act that the present Municipal Common Se