Introduction

The case of G. Balagopalan v. State Of Kerala was brought before the Kerala High Court on February 2, 2021. The petitioner, G. Balagopalan, a retired Director of Police, filed a public interest writ petition challenging Government Order (P) No. 1/2019/GAD dated January 31, 2019. This order permitted Government employees and teachers to avail eligible or casual leave and receive salaries for the days they did not attend work during a nationwide general strike. The core issue revolves around the legality and constitutionality of granting such leaves amidst a strike that significantly impacted public services and the state's financial resources.

Summary of the Judgment

The Kerala High Court meticulously examined the grounds of the petition, which alleged that the issuance of Exhibit-P1 Order was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The petitioner contended that permitting leave under such circumstances amounted to an abuse of power and undermined the state's obligations within its federal structure. The State Government defended the order by citing existing rules and previous precedents where similar orders were issued under specific circumstances like lack of public conveyance during strikes.

After extensive deliberation on the statutory provisions, government orders, and relevant case laws, the High Court concluded that Exhibit-P1 Order violated the established Kerala Service Rules. The court emphasized that the State Government's action effectively regularized an illegal strike by granting undue privileges to the striking employees, thereby contravening the principles of the rule of law. Consequently, the court quashed the contested order, directing the State Government to take lawful actions against the unauthorized absences.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that shaped its legal reasoning:

• Bharath Kumar v. State of Kerala (1997): Declared bandh illegal and upheld by the Supreme Court.
• George Kurian v. State Of Kerala (2004): Reinforced the illegality of bandh-like general strikes.
• Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003): Affirmed that government employees have no statutory right to strike.
• Harish Uppal v. Union of India (1987): Emphasized the paramountcy of the rule of law over arbitrary government actions.
• Dr. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987): Highlighted the importance of rule of law in upholding constitutional principles.
• Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi (2006): Defined the scope of judicial review over government policies.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's stance against unauthorized and unconstitutional actions by the state, particularly in the context of strikes and public order.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, and the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960, which strictly prohibit government employees from engaging in strikes. Rule 14A explicitly states that unauthorized absences due to strikes are treated as “Dies-non,” resulting in non-eligibility for pay and allowances. Despite these clear stipulations, the State Government's Exhibit-P1 Order circumvented these rules by allowing eligible leave and salary for the strike days.

The court found this action to be a direct violation of established rules and an abuse of the government's authority. Moreover, by granting leave indiscriminately to all absent employees, the government failed to uphold its constitutional obligations and undermined the principles of federalism and rule of law. The High Court emphasized that while policy decisions are generally subject to judicial review for legality, the outright violation of statutory provisions renders such policies unconstitutional.

Impact

This landmark judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that state actions remain within constitutional and statutory bounds. By quashing the Exhibit-P1 Order, the Kerala High Court set a precedent that:

• Government orders cannot contravene established service rules, especially in matters affecting public service and financial accountability.
• Judicial oversight remains robust in preventing arbitrary state actions, even in contexts typically considered as internal service matters.
• The decision acts as a deterrent against future attempts by state authorities to bypass clear legal frameworks during strikes or public disturbances.

Furthermore, the judgment underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the balance of power between various state functions, ensuring that executive actions do not infringe upon constitutional mandates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Dies-Non

Dies-Non refers to days on which a government employee is absent from duty without authorization. According to Rule 14A of the Kerala Service Rules, such absences due to participation in strikes result in the absence being treated as Dies-Non, leading to non-payment of salary for those days.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Public Interest Litigation is a legal mechanism allowing individuals or groups to file petitions in court to protect the public interest. In this case, the petitioner invoked PIL to challenge the government's policy affecting a broad section of public servants.

Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle that all individuals and institutions, including the government, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. This principle ensures that no one is above the law and that justice is administered without bias.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court's decision in G. Balagopalan v. State Of Kerala serves as a robust affirmation of the rule of law, particularly in the governance of public servants and the administration of state policies. By invalidating the Exhibit-P1 Order, the court reinforced the supremacy of statutory provisions over executive actions, safeguarding the integrity of public service and ensuring that state authorities remain within their constitutional boundaries.

This judgment not only addresses the immediate concerns of illegal leave and salary disbursements during strikes but also sets a critical precedent for future cases involving the abuse of governmental powers. It underscores the judiciary's pivotal role in maintaining checks and balances within the state's power structures, thereby upholding democratic principles and ensuring accountability in governance.