Policy decisions regarding employment eligibility under Direct Payment Systems remain valid unless proven unfounded; prior regularization claims dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14538 of 2023 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellants are working under the Hospital attached to the 3^rd respondent College. The Government, while introducing the Direct Payment System (‘DPS’ for short) in the College as early as in the year 2000 and during staff fixation in 2002, certain employees, including the appellants working under the Hospital, were exempted from the purview of the DPS. 16 staff members in the Hospital were included in the DPS. This exclusion of the appellants was challenged before this Court, which resulted in Exts.P5 Judgment dated 03.03.2005 in O.P. No. 25592 of 2000 and P6 Judgment dated 17.06.2005 in W.A.No.1530 of 2004, whereby this Court directed that the appellants also be included in the approved staff list. The Government preferred a Special Leave Petition against the above Judgment, which resulted in Ext.P7 Judgment dated 23.02.2009 in Civil Appeal No.1152-1153 of 2009, whereby the Supreme Court found that the policy decision of the Government to exclude the staff of the Hospital need not be interfered with and hence the appellants were denied salary from 2009 December onwards.

2.1. Later, the Kerala State Human Rights Commission issued Ext.P9 order dated 03.11.2012 to treat the appellants as employees and to give the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act . By that time, the Management issued Ext. P10 order dated 31.12.2012, by which the employment of the appellants was put an end. Hence, the appellants 1 to 3 preferred W.P.(C)No.606 of 2013 before this Court. At the time of admission of that writ petition, this Court passed Ext.P11 Interim order ordering the management to retain the appellants and the Government to evolve a scheme for salary and allowances. The writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P12 Judgment dated 30.10.2015 , and ordered to treat the appellants as employees eligible for the salary.

2.2. Accordingly, the Government also issued Ext.P13 order, dated 11.05.2016, including the appellants under the direct payment system. The Government then filed W.A.No. 1823 of 2017, challenging the judgment in Ext.P12, which resulted in Ext.P14 Judgment dated 21.06.2018 and the Division Bench of this Court directed the appellants to prefer representation before the Government for extending the period from 2000 onwards instead of limiting it from 11-05-2016. Accordingly, the appellants submitted Ext.P15 representation dated 10.07.2018 and the same was considered by the Government, which rejected the same through Ext.P16 order dated 02.04.2019. Hence, Ext.P16 was challenged before this Court by preferring W.P.(C) No.20688 of 2019. This Court, through Ext.P19 Judgment dated 14.11.2022, directed reconsideration of the entire issue by the Government, taking note of the fact that the directions issued in Ext.P14 judgment have not been complied with, and the effect of Ext.P17 order dated 24.07.2012 in respect of a watcher of the Hospital whereby the Government approved his appointment with effect from 01.07.2008, was also not considered by the Government.

2.3. The Government now issued Ext.P21 order dated 21.01.2023, whereby the claim of the appellants is again rejected. The specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P19 judgment to consider Ext.P17 and its effect was not even adverted to the Government. According to the Government, the staff strength of the College at the tim