JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The judgment dated 17.11.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge, finally disposing of the instant petition (civil), W.P(C) No.14653/2021, by mainly allowing pleas therein, is under challenge in this intra-court appeal filed under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. The appellants herein are the respondents in the above W.P(C).

The sole writ petitioner therein is the sole respondent herein. The respondent herein will be referred for convenience as 'the writ petitioner/petitioner'.

3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in the W.A/respondents in the W.P(C) and Sri.Vinod Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the W.A/writ petitioner.

4. The prayers in the writ petition (civil), W.P(C) No.14653/2021 filed by the respondent herein, are as follows :

“a) To call for the records leading up to Ext.P7 and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P7 issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent;

b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction allowing Ext.P3 application directing the 2nd respondent to pay the petitioner the back wages from December, 2019 to 18.02.2021 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

and c) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may prays from time to time.”

5. The petitioner is an Advocate enrolled on the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala. As per Ext.P-1 G.O(MS) No.204/2016/Law dated 02.12.2016, the competent authority of the State Government in the Law Department has appointed the petitioner as Government Advocate at the Munsiff Court Centre, Aluva, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till the attainment of 60 years, whichever is earlier. Two persons including the petitioner have been appointed as Government Advocates for Munsiff Courts, as per Ext.P-1. Incidentally, it is relevant to note that as per para No.3 of Ext.P-1 appointment order, the Government has clearly ordered therein that the predecessors in office, who were to be replaced by the new appointees, shall hand over charges to the newly appointed Advocates forthwith.

6. The petitioner had taken charge as Government Advocate, Munsiff Court, Aluva, as per Ext.P-2 15.12.2016 in pursuance of Ext.P-1.

There were no complaints whatsoever in regard to the duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioner as Government Advocate. Going by the terms and conditions of Ext.P-1, the petitioner could have continued for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge (15.12.2016), which is upto 15.12.2019 or till he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. It is common ground that going by the date of birth of the petitioner, he was to complete the age of 60 years on 29.11.2019 and this fact was well-known to the Government, District Collector, etc. According to the petitioner, well before the attainment of 60 years of age on 29.11.2019, the petitioner had approached the officials concerned of the Suit Cell of the District Collectorate, Ernakulam, pointing out that he had to demit office on 29.11.2019 and as to what he should do in the matter of handing over charges, since it was learnt that no steps have been taken by the Government to appoint a new Government Advocate in lieu of the petitioner. The petitioner was then apprised by the State officials that since the work of a Government Advocate is sensitive and has to be looked after by an authorized Government Advocate, it is his duty to attend to the work, till a newly appointed Government Advocate replaces him or till any other charge arrangement is made by the authorities, like the District Collector, Law Secretary, etc. The petitioner also learn that no steps were then taken for appointment of a new Government Advocate in lieu of the petitioner. Hence, as part