IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 13412 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.246/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AYUSH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEME, NEW DELHI-1. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL GOVT.HEALTH SCHEME, KESAVADASAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM-4. 4. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, IN CHARGE AYURVEDIC UNIT, CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEME, MELATHUMELE, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, IN CHARGE HOMOEOPATHIC UNIT, CENTRAL GOVT.HEALTH SCHEME, MELATHUMELE, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASST.SOLICITOR W.P.(C) NO.13412/2006 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K. AJI KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUKRISHNAN, GROUP `D' (ON CONTRACT) HOMOEO DISPENSARY, CENTRAL GOVT.HEALTH SCHEME MELATHUMELE, VATTIYORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT THATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VALAYATTY, KOTTOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. C.K. LEELA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O KUNJAMBU, PHARMACIST, HOMOEO, (ON CONTRACT) CENTRAL GOVT.HEALTH SCHEME MELATHUMELE, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT LEELA BHAVAN, PONAVILA, AYIRA P.O., PARASSALA. 3. K. ANIKUTTAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KOCHAPPI, GROUP `D' (ON CONTRACT), AYURVEDIC DISPENSARY, CENTRAL GOVT.HEALTH SCHEME, MELATHUMELE, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM RESIDING AT KUNNIL VILAYIL VEEDU, T.C.4/76, EAST PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4. 4. K. VIJAYAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, PHARMACIST, AYURVEDA, (ON CONTRACT), AYURVEDIC DISPENSARY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH SCHEME, MELATHUMELE, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT VIJAYA NIVAS, SEELAPPARA,TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.M.V.SOMARAJAN FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.13412/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF O.A.NO.246/2005 OF THE C.A.T, ERNAKULAM DT.03.04.2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.A.NO.246/2005 DT.31.05.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.07.09.2005 IN O.A.NO.246/2005 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF LETTER NO.F.NO.D-14019/1/2005 AYUSH 9E-1) DT.30.11.2005. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.E.81/2004/CGHS/TVM/920 DT.7.6.2006 EXT.R1(c): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.E.81/2004/CGHS/TVM/922 DT.7.6.2006 EXT.R1(d): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.E.81/2004/CGHS/TVM/924 DT.7.6.2006 EXT.R1(e): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.E.81/2004/CGHS/TVM/921 DT.7.6.2006 EXT.R1(f): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER IN O.A.NO.416/2006 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13412 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.246/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are the writ petitioners. The applicants therein are the respondents herein. 2. The applicants were engaged on contract basis by the writ petitioners in their Homeo and Ayurvedic dispensaries. They were so appointed pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification. After sometime, Annexure-A4 notification was issued proposing to make again recruitment to the post held by them on daily wage basis. In the above background, the Original Application was filed seeking appropriate reliefs against their termination to accommodate fresh hands. The C.A.T disposed of the Original Application holding that before expiring the term of appointment of the applicants, fresh hands should not be engaged in their place. The applicants were initially appointed W.P.(C) No.13412/2006 2 for a term of three months. Thereafter, their term was extended for another period of three months. While so, fresh steps were taken as per Annexure-A4 for engaging fresh hands on daily wage basis. 3. Now more than four years have elapsed after the engagement of the applicants. The maximum period of employment, they can claim was only two years, as evident from Annexure A1. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of clarifying that if the petitioners think fit, they can engage fresh hands in the place of applicants. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps