J U D G M E N T

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C).No.29091/20921 are the appellants herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.5.2022 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

The appellants are stated to have been engaged as casual labourers for doing sanitation works in the respondent Municipality on various dates from 1.5.2013, 1.5.2017, 8.5.2017 and 21.5.2017 respectively. It would appear that by a communication dated 30.11.2021, they were informed that they need not report for duty from 1.12.2021 onwards. Later, when they came to know that the respondent Municipality was engaging other persons to tend to the sanitation works, they approached this Court through the writ petition aforementioned contending, based on the judgment in Hameshdas K.H. and Others v. The State of Kerala and Others - [2021 (3) ILR (Ker.) 456], that they had a right to be regularised in the services of the respondent Municipality.

2. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that the appellants were engaged only on a temporary basis and were disengaged with effect from 1.12.2021. The disengagement was apparently based on a Resolution of the Municipal Council dated 20.11.2021, which Resolution was never under challenge in the writ petition. It was also found that the decision of the Municipality was taken in view of the adverse financial condition faced by them, and the consequent reduction in sanitation works due to the subsiding of the surge in covid cases. The learned Judge therefore found that the subsequent employment of sanitary workers through the Employment Exchange did not give rise to a cause of action to the appellants to approach this Court through the writ petition seeking regularisation. The decision in Hameshdas (supra), that was relied upon by the appellants, was distinguished by the learned Single Judge by noting that in the said judgment, the workers concerned were included in the Daily Labour Rolls of the Thrissur Corporation, and had continued in service for more than a decade and further that the Corporation itself had sought Government permission to regularise their service. The facts in the writ petition being totally different, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.

3. Before us, it is the contention of Smt.Vaheeda Babu, the learned counsel for the appellants that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21.4.2022 in Manish Gupta & Another etc. v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Others etc. [Civil Appeal Nos.3084-3088 of 2022], the Supreme Court has taken the view that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. We note however from the said judgment that the employment of petitioners in those cases was under a Scheme known as the “Jan Bhagidari Scheme” notified by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, and the appointments under the Scheme were to be made on a contractual/tenure basis. The cause of action arose on account of the termination of the services of some of the persons prior to the expiry of the period of the Scheme. It was in that context that the Supreme Court held that there was no warrant for replacing one set of employees with another set during the pendency of the Scheme. The facts in the instant case, are entirely different. It is not in dispute that the appellants were not appointed under any Scheme or for any particular tenure. Their appointment as casual labourers for sanitation works under the Municipality did not carry with it any assurance that the job will be for any given period, or that they would, at the end of their casual engagement, be regularised in service. In State of Gujarat v. RJ Pathan - [2022 SCC OnLine SC 354], the Supreme Court has clarified that the question of period of contractual service lies squarely with the conc