High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
T.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR v. THE SECRETARY - OP No. 20605 of 2000(C)  RD-KL 8686 (25 May 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 20605 of 2000(C)
1. T.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR
1. THE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.O.P.No.20605 OF 2000
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2007
The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala University on 31.3.1993 on superannuation. At the time of retirement, he was working as a Selection Grade Assistant Librarian in the Kerala University Library. After retirement, he applied for being considered for appointment as Librarian on contract basis in the State Institute of Rural Development, which is an institution funded by the Government of Kerala and the Ministry of Rural Development in the Government of India. It had set apart certain funds for upgradation of library facilities which necessitated the invitation of applications for appointment of Librarian on contract basis. It is explicit from Ext.P1, the communication of the Institute requesting the petitioner to be present for an interface, that the notification on the basis of which the petitioner applied for consideration, the interface and the appointment were only on contract basis. Ext.P2 communication clearly states that the petitioner is appointed for OP.20605/00 Page numbers a period of one year at the first instance on contract basis. Ext.P3 is the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Institute evidencing the contract between them. The different clauses categorically show that the appointment was nothing but on contract basis and the petitioner is not eligible for any service benefits other than the emoluments as agreed to in clause (ii).
2. After having worked for one year on the basis of Ext.P3, the petitioner expressed his willingness to renew the period of contract for a further period of one year. This annual renewal of the contract between the petitioner and the Institute, resulting in his engagement on contract basis, continued until Ext.P5 was issued on 22.3.1999, while the petitioner's service thus came to an end in the Institute.
3. The termination is only the termination of the contract employment and it gives him no right other than the entitlement to insist for the statutory notice as agreed to between the parties OP.20605/00 Page numbers in Ext.P3 agreement and consequential agreement, if any, or for appointment in lieu of notice. However, relying on Ext.P6 G.O. (P) No.1088/98/Fin. dated 23.3.1998, the petitioner made Ext.P7 representation to the secretary of the Institute, invoking the provisions of Rule 100 of Part III KSR and requesting revision of pay and other benefits. He followed it up with Exts. P8 and P9 representations and even by a writ petition, which resulted in a direction for disposal of those representations. Ultimately, the Institute came out with the impugned Ext.P11 decision informing the petitioner that his request for revision and disbursement of re-employment pay and other benefits in terms of the aforesaid Government Order is inadmissible in terms of the conditions/rules of the Institute and its rules relating to the appointment of the petitioner. The Institute, accordingly, rejected his claim. This writ petition is filed challenging the said decision of the Institute and seeking issuance of a direction to pay to the petitioner arrears of pay and allowances as claimed by him as stated above, with interest at 18% for alleged delayed payment. OP.20605/00 Page numbers
4. The Director of the Institute, through the faculty member, has filed a counter affidavit taking the clear stand that the parties are regulated by the terms of Ext.P3 agreement and there is no ground to grant any emoluments other than those agreed to in clause (ii) thereof. It is also specifically pleaded by the contesting respondents that Rule 100 of Part III KSR does not apply.
5. Rule 100 of Part III KSR is part of Section 2 dealing with re-
employment of civil pensioners in Chapter VII
employment of pensioners. Firstly, Chapter VII of KSR Part II
cannot be pressed into
service in relation to the Institute for the
primary and fundamental reason that the said Institute is not
part of the Government. It is also not the service of a local fund.
It is an Institution that is funded by the Union of
India and the
State Government. There is neither any plea nor is it pointed out
that KSR apply mutatis muntandis
or has been applied by the
Institute to be part of those rules that govern it. That apart, the
quality of the appointment of the petitioner with the Institute is
only a contract appointment, as already noticed. The invitation
extended by the Institute was to persons
who were willing to
work on contract basis. The petitioner appeared for an interface
on the invitation in the
specific purpose of being considered for
appointment on contract basis. The terms of Ext.P3 is so explicit
that it is
a pure contract appointment and is nothing beyond a
contract poor and simple. Clause (ii) specifies the emoluments
and Clause (iv) clearly rules out any right for the petitioner to
bargain for anything more. The reference
made to Rule 100 and
Ext.P6 Government order are totally out of place and
misconceived. The writ petition
is without any merit.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JO.P.NO.20605 OF 2000
25th MAY, 2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.