Stay of reinstatement pending disposal of challenge to Appraisal Committee order to avoid complications.

The 1^st respondent in W.A.No.1625/2025 -

who is the 3^rd respondent in W.A.No.1633/2025 - (who will hereinafter be referred to by her name ‘Smt.Biji K.S’ for ease), was admittedly engaged on contract basis as a Technical Assistant in the services of the 1^st Appellant – Grama Panchayat (‘Panchayat’, for short). She says that she continued in such capacity for over ten years, but was then illegally terminated from service, which caused her to make a complaint; thus leading to an order of the Joint Director of Local Self Government Department (‘Joint Director’), dated 12.12.2024, directing the Panchayat to reinstate her, subject to the decision to be taken by the 'Appraisal Committee'.

2. It transpires that the 'Appraisal Committee' took a decision, through their order dated 19.05.2025, in favour of Smt.Biji K.S.

3. However, on the allegation that the afore orders were not being complied with by the Panchayat, Smt.Biji K.S. filed W.P(C)No.1735/2025, seeking that the same be ordered to be implemented; while, the Panchayat challenged the order of the ‘Joint Director’ through W.P(C)No.10688/2025, because it directed that Smt.Biji K.S. be reinstated. The Panchayat also filed W.P(C)No.21884/2025, challenging the order of the 'Appraisal Committee', which has also ordered Smt.Biji K.S. to be reinstated.

4. The learned Single Judge disposed of both W.P(C)Nos.1735/2025 and 10688/2025, directing the Panchayat to execute necessary documentation to reinstage Smt.Biji K.S. in service, but making it subject to the final result in the aforementioned W.P(C)No.21884/2024, which is still pending.

5. The Panchayat is in Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which jointly disposed of the aforementioned two Writ Petitions. They have filed W.A.No.1625/2025 and W.A.No.1633/2025 against the judgments in W.P(C)Nos.1735/2025 and 10688/2025 respectively. 6. Sri.P.Thomas Geeverghese – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, when W.P(C)No.21884/2024 is still pending before the learned Single Judge - in which, the order of the 'Appraisal Committee' is under challenge - the directions in the impugned judgment, that Smt.Biji K.S. be reinstated in service, after his client executes necessary contract for the same, are illegal and unlawful. He contended that, if W.P(C)No.21884/2024 is to be finally disposed of against Smt.Biji K.S., then the directions in the impugned judgment would become untenable; and prayed that these Appeals be, therefore, allowed.

7. Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran – learned counsel for Smt.Biji K.S., in response, submitted that the ‘Joint Director’ has already found the termination of his client from the contract employment to be illegal, since it could have been done only as per the recommendations of the 'Appraisal Committee' obtained prior to it. He asserted that the ‘Joint Director’ was, therefore, without error in having ordered his client’s reinstatement, subject to the decision of the 'Appraisal Committee'; and added that this is all that the learned Single Judge has also done, through the impugned judgment.

8. In reply, Sri.P.Thomas Geeverghese submitted that his client has a specific case - as has been projected in W.P(C)No.21884/2024 - that this is not a case where the services of Smt.Biji K.S. had been terminated, but where she refused to continue, when she was asked to take another engagement, which is part of the same contractual employment. He reiterated that, therefore, the directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, that Smt.Biji K.S. be allowed to continue in contract service and that his client execute documents for such, are impermissible.

9. When we hear the learned counsel on either side, it is ineluctable that the learned Single Judge has direc