Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Rajendran v. State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Dec 12, 1989

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The court heard Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 29707 of 1989 and disposed of the original petition after detailed arguments by counsel for the parties. The factual matrix in the opinion is as follows:

First petitioner was appointed as a water meter reader in Palghat Municipality on 21 April 1983 on a temporary basis under rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and continued in service thereafter.
Petitioners 2 and 3 were appointed as water meter readers under rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules by an order dated 27 July 1981 and similarly discharged duties attached to the post without interruption.
With effect from 1 April 1989, the water supply and sewerage system in Palghat Municipality stood transferred to and vested in the Kerala Water Authority (the third respondent) by operation of the Kerala Water and Sewerage Act, 1986 (the Act), as reflected in Exhibit P1 (Government order dated 11 October 1989, fixing the appointed day as 1 April 1989).
Second respondent (the municipality) terminated the petitioners' services effective 31 October 1989. The petition challenged that termination.
The opinion records the appearances of learned counsel: Sri K.J. Joseph for the second respondent (municipality) and Sri K.R. Kurup for the Kerala Water Authority (third respondent).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, by virtue of the vesting and transfer of the municipal water supply and sewerage services to the Kerala Water Authority (with effect from the appointed day, 1 April 1989), petitioners who were temporary employees of the Palghat Municipality and employed in connection with those services became temporary employees of the Kerala Water Authority.
Whether the termination of the petitioners' services by the municipality with effect from 31 October 1989 was lawful after the vesting and transfer.
Whether a dispute as to whether the petitioners were "exclusively employed" in connection with the water supply and sewerage services must be determined by the Government under Section 20(3) of the Act, and what interim relief should follow pending that decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Second Respondent (Municipality) — Sri K.J. Joseph

The municipality engaged the petitioners as temporary employees under rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules to attend to work as water meter readers.
The petitioners' work was exclusively connected with the water supply and sewerage system.
Because the water supply and sewerage system vested in the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 1 April 1989, the petitioners became employees of that Authority and subsequently the municipality no longer had control over them.

Third Respondent (Kerala Water Authority) — Sri K.R. Kurup

Admitted that the water supply and sewerage system vested in the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 1 April 1989.
Contended that assets and employees were not transferred to the Water Authority, and therefore employees engaged by the municipality in connection with those services cannot be treated as employees of the Water Authority; consequently petitioners cannot claim relief against the Authority.
Asserted that petitioners failed to show they were exclusively employed in connection with the water supply and sewerage services; because exclusivity is disputed, the issue must be decided by the Government as contemplated by Section 20(3) of the Act, and without a Government decision petitioners cannot obtain a remedy against the Water Authority.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis follows the text of the Act and the Government order fixing the appointed day:

Statutory basis for vesting and transfer: The court examined Section 18 of the Kerala Water and Sewerage Act, 1986, which provides that water supply and sewerage services which were vested in any local authority shall vest in and stand transferred to the Water Authority on a day appointed by the Government. Exhibit P1 (Government order dated 11 October 1989) fixed the appointed day as 1 April 1989; accordingly, the entire water supply and sewerage services of Palghat Municipality vested in and stood transferred to the Water Authority with effect from that date.
Nature of the transfer: The court treated the transfer effected by Section 18(1) as an absolute transfer by operation of law — a transfer of the totality of the municipality's rights over the scheme to the Water Authority.
Effect on employees: The court considered Section 20, specifically clause (6), which provides that every permanent or temporary employee of the local body should become a permanent or temporary employee of the Water Authority on and from the date of vesting. The court concluded that, combined, Sections 18 and 20 operate to make all permanent and temporary municipal employees who were exclusively employed in connection with water supply and sewerage services employees of the Water Authority from the date of vesting.
Application to petitioners: The petitioners were temporary municipal employees engaged in water supply and sewerage services and were in service on the appointed day (1 April 1989). Therefore, the court found they became temporary employees of the Water Authority by operation of the Act and were entitled to continue in their posts.
Validity of municipal termination: Because the vesting made the petitioners employees of the Water Authority as of 1 April 1989, the municipality (second respondent) no longer had authority to terminate their services after that date. The court characterized the municipal action in terminating their services as illegal.
Dispute over exclusivity: The Water Authority's contention that the petitioners were not "exclusively employed" in connection with the water supply and sewerage services raised a question falling under Section 20(3) of the Act. The court directed the Water Authority to refer this issue to the Government for decision and ordered that the Government decide the issue expeditiously if the Water Authority moves it.
Interim relief: Pending the Government's decision on exclusivity, the court ordered that the petitioners should be continued in service. Their continued employment thereafter would depend on the Government's decision.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The original petition is disposed of in the terms recorded in the judgment. Concretely:

The court held that, by operation of Sections 18 and 20 of the Kerala Water and Sewerage Act, 1986, the petitioners — being temporary municipal employees engaged in water supply and sewerage services and in service on the appointed day (1 April 1989) — became temporary employees of the Kerala Water Authority.
The court held that the municipality's termination of the petitioners' services after the appointed day was illegal, and ordered that the petitioners be continued in service pending resolution of the exclusivity issue by the Government under Section 20(3) of the Act.
The court directed the third respondent (Kerala Water Authority) to take up the exclusivity issue with the Government for decision and asked that such decision be taken expeditiously if the Authority moves the Government.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The petitioners are to be treated as temporary employees of the Kerala Water Authority from 1 April 1989 and must be continued in service until the Government resolves the exclusivity question. The municipality's termination of their services with effect from 31 October 1989 has been declared illegal insofar as it attempted to affect employees already vested in the Water Authority.
No wider precedent announced: The opinion applies the statutory provisions (Ss. 18 and 20) to the facts and requires a Government determination under S.20(3) where exclusivity is disputed. The judgment does not record or invoke any additional precedent or announce a broader legal principle beyond the application of the cited statutory provisions to the present facts.

Order: The original petition is disposed of in the terms recorded. The court directed issuance of a photocopy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.

Show all summary ...

1. When Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 29707 of 1989 came up for orders, I heard learned counsel appearing on either side in detail. I am disposing of the original petition.

2. First petitioner was appointed as water meter reader in Palghat Municipality on 21 April 1983. Even though that appointment was temporary under rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, he continued in service from that date. Petitioners 2 and 3 were also appointed under rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules as water meter readers as per the order, dated 27 July 1981. They were discharging their duties attached to the post without break. When the water supply and sewerage system in Palghat Municipality stood transferred to and vested in the Kerala Water Authority, third respondent, with effect from 1 April 1989, according to the petitioners, by virtue of S. 20 of the Kerala Water and Sewerage Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as “the Act,” they became temporary employees of the Kerala Water Authority and are entitled to continue as such. Second respondent terminated their services with effect from 31 October 1989. That termination is under challenge in this petition.

3. Sri K.J Joseph, learned counsel representing second respondent-municipality, submitted that the municipality engaged the petitioners as temporary employees under rule 9(a)(i) of the General Rules for attending to the work as water meter reader. Their work was exclusively connected with the water supply and sewerage system. The water supply and sewerage system stood transferred to and became vested in the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 1 April 1989, and petitioners became employees of that authority. Thereafter second respondent is not having any control over the petitioners.

4. Sri K.R Kurup, learned counsel representing the Kerala Water Authority, submitted that it is correct to state that the water supply and sewerage system which belonged to second respondent stood vested in the Kerala Water Authority with effect from 1 April 1989. But its assets and employees were not transferred to the water authority. So, employees engaged by the municipality in connection with the water supply and sewerage system cannot become employees, of the Water Authority. In this view, petitioners cannot claim any relief as against the Water Authority. Yet another contention that has been raised by him is that petitioners have not succeeded in showing whether they were exclusively employed in connection with the water supply and sewerage service of Palghat Municipality. As there is dispute regarding the exclusive nature of employment, the issue will have to be decided by the Government as contemplated by S. 20(3) of the Act. Without Government taking a decision as contemplated by that section, petitioners cannot have any remedy as against the Kerala Water Authority.

5. Section 18 of the Act, inter alia, provides that water supply and sewerage services [which were vested in any local authority shall vest in and stand transferred to the Water Authority on a day appointed by the Government. This provision makes it clear that with effect from the date appointed by the Government the entire water supply and sewerage services which belonged to a local body should vest in and stand transferred to the Water Authority. Exhibit P1 order of the Government, dated 11 October 1989, makes it clear that the appointed day, for the above vesting and transfer of the water supply and sewerage services which belonged to local bodies to the Water Authority, was fixed as 1 April 1989. Consequent on the fixation of that date, with effect from 1 April 1989, the entire water supply and sewerage services which belonged to the Palghat Municipality became vested in and stood transferred to the Water Authority. By the provisions contained in S. 18(1) of the Act, the water supply and sewerage services which belonged to the local body was transferred to and became vested in the Water Authority. The water supply and sewerage services became subject of an absolute transfer by operation of law. The transfer is of the totality of the rights of the municipality over the scheme to the Water Authority. When such a vesting and transfer took place, employees of the local bodies who were exclusively employed in connection with the water supply and sewerage services became employees of the Water Authority. Clause (6) of S. 20 of the Act provides that every permanent or temporary employee of the local body should also become a permanent or temporary employee of the Water Authority on and from the date of vesting. The combined effect of Ss. 18 and 20 of the Act is that water supply and sewerage services of the Palghat Municipality became vested in and stood transferred to the Water Authority with effect from 1 April 1989. All permanent and temporary employees of that municipality who were exclusively employed in connection with water supply and sewerage services became permanent or temporary employees as the case may be of the Water Authority.

6. Petitioners were temporary employees of the municipality engaged in the water supply and sewerage services. They were in service as on the date of vesting. Hence, they have become temporary employees of the Water Authority. They are entitled to continue in the post as such. Their services are not to be terminated by the second respondent. After 1 April 1989, second respondent had no authority to interfere with the services of the petitioners because they became employees of the Water Authority by operation of law. The action on the part of second respondent in terminating their services was illegal. They continue to be the employees of the Water Authority till their services are terminated by some process known to law.

7. This respondent has now raised a contention that petitioners were not exclusively employed in connection with the water supply or sewerage services of the Palghat Municipality. This dispute, under S. 20(3) of the Act, has to be resolved by the Government. I direct the third respondent to take up the issue with the Government for decision. A decision on this issue must be taken by the Government as expeditiously as possible, if the Water Authority moves the Government in this regard. Until Government takes a decision on the issue, petitioners should be continued in service. Their further continuance in service will depend on the decision of the Government.

8. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms.

9. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.