IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33832 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RUSSLET.J. 2ND GRADE DRAFTSMAN (PROVISIONAL) OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PWD, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33834 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.33832 & 33834 of 2009 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are provisional employees. 2. According to the learned Government Pleader, their appointment was made invoking Rule 39, and was up to the age of 55 years. Admittedly, they have attained the age of 55 years on 30th November, and their services have been dispensed with. 3. In these writ petitions, what is claimed by the petitioners is the benefit of Ext.P2 Government Order, by which, the Government have proposed an amendment to Rule 60(a) of Part-I, KSR extending the service of Government Employees and Teachers, till 31st March of the succeeding year. 4. The case was adjourned for the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter. On instructions, it is stated that the Government, in its order dated 26/11/2009, has already clarified that provisional employees like the petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of Ext.P2. Although, it is the contention WP(C) No.33832 & 33834 of 2009 -2- of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since Rule 60(a) of Part-I KSR has been made applicable in their case, the petitioners are eligible for the benefit of Ext.P2, by which an amendment has been made to the Rule. Though, this submission would appear to be attractive, I am not inclined to accept this contention for the reason that under the terms of their appointment, petitioners' appointments are only up to the age of 55 years. If so, being provisional employees, the petitioners will have to leave the Government service on attaining the age prescribed in the order of appointment. If so, they are not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P2. These writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg