Employees in the Panchayat/Municipal Common Service are Government servants for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal to entertain cases relating to service disputes of Panchayat/Municipal Common Service employees.

Headnote:
MUNICIPAL COMMON SERVICE - SERVICE BENEFITS - PRIOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE - RECKONING - APPLICABILITYThe Kerala High Court has held that employees in the Panchayat/Municipal Common Service are Government servants for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal to entertain cases relating to service disputes of Panchayat/Municipal Common Service employees.The Court relied on its earlier judgments in Santhosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats and Annexure A10 judgment, which held that there is no distinction between Panchayat Common Service and Municipal Common Service after the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution, and that both categories of employees merit categorization as Government servants for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction on the State Administrative Tribunal to entertain cases relating to service disputes of such employees.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Sri.Sunilkumar.K.S., had joined the Municipal Common Service as Lower Division Clerk in 2011 and was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk in 2017. Prior to joining the Municipal Common Service, he had worked in the service of the Government for three spells, namely, 2004-2005 as Fireman Trainee, 2005-2010 as Fireman, and 2010-2011 as Village Extension Officer Grade II in the Rural Development Department.Anticipating that his prior Government service would not be reckoned along with his Municipal Common Service for the purposes of various service benefits, he preferred a representation before the Government, which was rejected by Annexure A1 order dated 11.01.2019 stating that only those who joined the Municipal Common Service prior to 12.09.2006 were entitled to reckon their prior Government service for the purposes of service benefits.
Finding of the Court:

The Kerala High Court found that the impugned order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference in this OP(KAT) notwithstanding the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioners.The Court held that the judgments of the Division Bench in Santhosh Kumar (supra) and Annexure A10 judgment have attained finality and that the said judgments have not been carried in appeal by the Government in further proceedings.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to reckon his prior Government service along with his Municipal Common Service for the purposes of service benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on its earlier judgments in Santhosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats and Annexure A10 judgment, which held that there is no distinction between Panchayat Common Service and Municipal Common Service after the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution, and that both categories of employees merit categorization as Government servants for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction on the State Administrative Tribunal to entertain cases relating to service disputes of such employees.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the original petition filed by the State Government and directed the petitioners to ensure that the consequential benefits flowing to the applicant based on the judgment of the Tribunal as well as this judgment are paid to the applicant within an outer time limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar. J.

The State is the petitioner in this original petition, aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2021 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA No.601 of 2019.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the original petition are as follows:

The applicant before the Tribunal, Sri.Sunilkumar.K.S. had joined the Municipal Common Service as Lower Division Clerk with effect from 4.11.2011. He was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the same service with effect from 20.04.2017. It would appear that prior to his taking up the assignment in the Municipal Common Service in 2011 he had worked in the service of the Government for three spells, namely, 28.4.2004 to

29.4.2005 as Fireman Trainee, 30.04.2005 to 19.03.2010 as Fireman and 20.03.2010 to 4.11.2011 as Village Extension Officer Grade II in the Rural Development Department. Anticipating that his prior Government service would not be reckoned along with his Municipal Common Service for the purposes of various service benefits, he preferred a representation before the Government, which was rejected by Annexure A1 order dated 11.01.2019 stating that only those who joined the Municipal Common Service prior to 12.09.2006 were entitled to reckon their prior Government service for the purposes of service benefits. It was the said rejection order that was impugned by the applicant before the Tribunal in the original application aforementioned.

3. Before the Tribunal, the stand taken by the State Government in support of the impugned order was that it was only by the Government Order dated 13.07.1987 that the Government had permitted the reckoning of prior Government service rendered by an employee who had since joined the Municipal Common Service for service benefits, and the said benefit continued up to 12.09.2006 on which date the said permission was cancelled by another Government Order. It was therefore contended that in as much as the applicant before the Tribunal had joined the Municipal Common Service only after 12.9.2006, he was not entitled to reckon the prior Government service for the purposes of service benefits.

4. The Tribunal that considered the matter found that even de hors the two Government Orders referred above the judgment of a Division Bench of this in Santhosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats [2013 (2) KLT 548] had already considered the issue as to whether servants in Panchayat/Municipal Common Service are Government servants for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal to entertain cases relating to service disputes of Panchayat employees. In the said judgment the Division Bench had, after examining the provisions of the Constitution pursuant to the 73rd and 74th amendments thereto and also the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and the Municipalities Act opined that there was no justification for a differential treatment of employees in the Panchayat service and employees in the Municipal Common Service. It was thereafter found that both the categories of employees would merit categorization as Government servants for the purposes of conferring jurisdiction on the State Administrative Tribunal to entertain cases relating to service disputes of such employees.

The Tribunal further found that the said judgment of the Division Bench had been followed thereafter by another Division Bench in Annexure A10 judgment that is produced along with the OP(KAT). It is significant that the latter judgment pertains to an employee who had left Government service to join the Municipal Common Service. The Tribunal by relying on the said judgment found that the stand of the State Government based on the Government Orders referred above was legally untenable and proceeded to allow the original application by setting aside the impugned Government Order declining the applicant's request for protection of pay and declaring that the applicant was entitled to all service benefits including protection of sal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document