IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
JOMON GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14446 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existing employees challenged under new guidelines. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. court hears arguments on applicability. (Para 7) |
| 3. court findings on retroactive effect of guidelines. (Para 8) |
| 4. final ruling against termination based on new guidelines. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is working as Driver in the Edathua Grama Panchayat since 27.12.1999. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Sub Clause (ii) of Clause 8 of Ext.P1 and to declare that Sub Clause (ii) of Clause 8 of Ext.P1 is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that Ext.P2 Government Order is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent-
Panchayat as per Resolution No.2 dated 12.07.2024 recommended transfer of Senior Clerk Veena V. Nair on account of certain allegations against her. One among the various allegations against her is that she submitted a report before the 3rd respondent stating that there is no Driver working in the Panchayat. The said Veena V. Nair later clarified the position that what she reported is that there is no permanent Driver working in the Panchayat.
3. It appears that disciplinary action was proposed against Veena V. Nair, which was not proceeded with. The said issue is pending consideration before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.
4. When the issue of the petitioner’s appointment came up for consideration before the Government of Kerala, the Government issued Ext.P1 order and directing that the appointment of Daily Wage Workers and Daily Wage Drivers should be strictly governed by Ext.P2 Government Order. 5. Ext.P2 Government Order dated 30.03.2023 clearly stipulates that the guidelines given thereunder would apply only in respect of vacancies arising on and from the issuance of Ext.P2 Government Order.
6. The petitioner states the Departmental Authorities are pressurising to terminate the service of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner’s continuance as Driver is in violation of Ext.P2 Government Order.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.
8. Ext.P2 Government Order is one providing guidelines for appointment of Drivers and other Daily Wage Workers in Grama Panchayat. The Government gave various guidelines on such appointments. However, Ext.P2 makes it very clear that the guidelines would apply only to those vacancies arising from the date of Ext.P2 Government Order.
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is working as Driver since 27.12.1999 against a vacancy. The said vacancy arose much prior to Ext.P2.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the service of the petitioner shall not be terminated on the basis of the guidelines contained in Ext.P2 Government Order.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.