Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SAYYED ABU SALIH SANIR KOYA THANGAL – Appellant
Versus
MANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, – Respondent
WP(C)/683/2021
Contract - Employment Contract Extension - Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantees Act, 2005 - Section 2(1)(h), Section 5 - The court ruled that while a Panchayat may extend contracts under the MGNREGA, it is not obliged to do so, especially in light of valid reasons for non-renewal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, previously employed as an Overseer by a Panchayat under MGNREGA, claimed his contract should have been extended for two years per a government order. The Panchayat refused, citing reasons including the petitioner's criminal implications and lack of performance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no legal basis for enforcing the two-year extension, clarifying that the Panchayat had discretionary power under the MGNREGA and that the petitioner had substantial disciplinary lapses justifying the non-renewal.
Issues: Whether the Panchayat was legally obliged to extend the petitioner's employment contract for two years as per the government order, given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling established that the extension terms of an employment contract are not mandatory, and justifiable grounds for non-renewal, such as criminal conduct and work performance, can override claims for automatic extension.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Panchayat for representation.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of March 2021 The petitioner says that he was originally engaged by Mangalam Grama Panchayat - of which the 3rd respondent is the Secretary - as an Overseer on contract basis, under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantees Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “ MGNREGA ”) and that even though, through Ext.P6, Government had permitted the Panchayats to extend the period of contract for two years, modifying the earlier term of one year, the Panchayat has renewed his contract only until 01.10.2020, namely, for one year.
2. The petitioner asserts that when Ext.P6 order had been issued by the Government on 03.03.2016, the Panchayat ought to have renewed his contract for two years and if that had been done, he would have continued until 01.10.2021. He says that however, when he made this claim before the Panchayat, they rejected it through Ext.P8, saying that it is upto them to decide the term of the contract and that Ext.P6 only mentions the maximum period for which a contract can be extended. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P8 be set aside and the 3rd respondent – Secretary of the Panchayat be directed to extend this contract until 01.10.2021.
3. The afore submissions of Sri. M. Devesh – learned counsel for the petitioner was stoutly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat – Sri. C. A. Majeed submitting that a counter affidavit has been filed on record by his client, wherein, it has been explained as to why the petitioner’s contract could not be extended, and that this was primarily because he was implicated in a crime involving violation of the modesty of a woman. He submitted that the afore explanation of his client is available in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, in which it has been averred that the petitioner was also found not upto the mark in discharge of his official duties. He further submitted that, as is evident from Ext.R3(a) judgment of this Court in WP(c) No.10572/2020 - which had been filed by the petitioner seeking that Panchayat be directed to permit him to work as an Overseer for a period of two years - this Court had refused to accede to the said contention, but has recorded that his engagement came to an end in October, 2020. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. Sri. P. Thomas Geeverghese - learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, submitted that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner concealing vital facts, particularly that his client had been engaged through a new contract, when the term of petitioner’s contract ended in October, 2020. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have considered the afore rival submissions and have also gone through the documents available on record.
6. There is no doubt that Government, through Ext.P6 order dated 03.03.2016, has permitted the Panchayats and other Local Self - Government Institutions to extend the period of contract for two years, modifying the earlier stipulation of one year. This does not, however, mean that the Panchayats are obligated to grant contract for the said period, but only that they are now empowered to do so, under the mandate of the said Government order.
7. Even the above being so, I cannot find the petitioner’s claim that he should be given extension of contract automatically on account of Ext.P6, to be valid in law, since as rightly stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, this Court had already noticed in Ext.R3(a) judgment that his term of contract has ended in October, 2020. This is the judgment obtained by the petitioner on a plea made by him that he be permitted to work as an Overseer till October, 2021; but same was not acceded to by this Court, though his contentions were left open.
8. That said, the real question is not whether the petitioner’s contract is deserving to be extended for a period of two years, but whether the Panchayat is obligated to grant such an ext
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
