1. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14538 of 2023 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellants are working under the Hospital attached to the 3rd respondent College. The Government, while introducing the Direct Payment System (‘DPS’ for short) in the College as early as in the year 2000 and during staff fixation in 2002, certain employees, including the appellants working under the Hospital, were exempted from the purview of the DPS. 16 staff members in the Hospital were included in the DPS. This exclusion of the appellants was challenged before this Court, which resulted in Exts.P5 Judgment dated 03.03.2005 in O.P. No. 25592 of 2000 and P6 Judgment dated 17.06.2005 in W.A.No.1530 of 2004, whereby this Court directed that the appellants also be included in the approved staff list. The Government preferred a Special Leave Petition against the above Judgment, which resulted in Ext.P7 Judgment dated 23.02.2009 in Civil Appeal No.1152-1153 of 2009, whereby the Supreme Court found that the policy decision of the Government to exclude the staff of the Hospital need not be interfered with and hence the appellants were denied salary from 2009 December onwards.

                  2.1. Later, the Kerala State Human Rights Commission issued Ext.P9 order dated 03.11.2012 to treat the appellants as employees and to give the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act. By that time, the Management issued Ext. P10 order dated 31.12.2012, by which the employment of the appellants was put an end. Hence, the appellants 1 to 3 preferred W.P.(C)No.606 of 2013 before this Court. At the time of admission of that writ petition, this Court passed Ext.P11 Interim order ordering the management to retain the appellants and the Government to evolve a scheme for salary and allowances. The writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P12 Judgment dated 30.10.2015, and ordered to treat the appellants as employees eligible for the salary.

                  2.2. Accordingly, the Government also issued Ext.P13 order, dated 11.05.2016, including the appellants under the direct payment system. The Government then filed W.A.No. 1823 of 2017, challenging the judgment in Ext.P12, which resulted in Ext.P14 Judgment dated 21.06.2018 and the Division Bench of this Court directed the appellants to prefer representation before the Government for extending the period from 2000 onwards instead of limiting it from 11-05-2016. Accordingly, the appellants submitted Ext.P15 representation dated 10.07.2018 and the same was considered by the Government, which rejected the same through Ext.P16 order dated 02.04.2019. Hence, Ext.P16 was challenged before this Court by preferring W.P.(C) No.20688 of 2019. This Court, through Ext.P19 Judgment dated 14.11.2022, directed reconsideration of the entire issue by the Government, taking note of the fact that the directions issued in Ext.P14 judgment have not been complied with, and the effect of Ext.P17 order dated 24.07.2012 in respect of a watcher of the Hospital whereby the Government approved his appointment with effect from 01.07.2008, was also not considered by the Government.

                  2.3. The Government now issued Ext.P21 order dated 21.01.2023, whereby the claim of the appellants is again rejected. The specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P19 judgment to consider Ext.P17 and its effect was not even adverted to the Government. According to the Government, the staff strength of the College at the time of the introduction of DPS was on the higher side than that of the other Colleges. Hence, the appellants cannot claim an anterior date for their regularisation. Such contentions were not at all there in the previous rounds of litigation, and the Government is estopped from bringing any new contentions. Apart from that, the finding arrived at is factually incorrect, as it could be revealed from Ext.P21. In Ext.P21, the Government granted approval for 63 non-teaching staff for another Homoeopathic Medical College. So the contentions are taken without any factual or legal basis by the Government. The specific case of the appellants is that they are entitled to be in DPS with effect from the date of Ext.P17. This issue was deliberately omitted by the Government. Therefore, the appellants filed W.P.(C)No.14538 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling of the recording leading to Exts.P20 and quash the same;

                  ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the respondents to bring the petitioners under the direct payment system with effect from 01.07.2008 in parity with Ext.P17 order by changing the date fixed in Ext.P16 from 11.05.2016 to 01.07.2008;

                  iii. Declare that Ext.P20 order issued by the Government is in violation to the directions of this Hon’ble Court in Ext.P19 judgment and hence it is illegal”.

3. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a counter affidavit dated 06.02.2024 was filed in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought for. Paragraphs 8 to 14 of that counter affidavit read thus:

                  “8. It is submitted that the combined judgment on 21.06.2018 in W.A.Nos.1823 of 2017, 1973 of 2017, etc. the Honourable division bench found that the question asked to whether the petitioners would be entitled to any benefits under Direct Payment System prior to 11.05.2016 to be looked into by the Government and again directed to the petitioners to make a representation to the Government highlighting the grievances within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The petitioners filed representation to the Government and they were heard in person and Government complied the judgment as per G.O.(Rt)200/2019/Ayush dated 0204.2019 and ordered that the petitioners request for regularising their service with effect from the date of implementation of Direct Payment System in their college is not admissible hence disposed the representation and rejected accordingly.

                  9. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent issued orders appointing one Sri Vishnu Prasad as Watcher, as per proceedings  No.2026/C1/08/GHMCF  dated  24.07.2012 (Ext.P20 in WP(C)No.606 of 2013), in the scale of pay of Rs.4510-6230 in the 3rd respondent Hospital w.e.f 01.07.2008. Later G.O(Rt) No. 130/2013 H&FWD dated 10.01.2013 (Ext.P21 in W.P.(C) 606 of 2013) was issued by the Health & Family Welfare Department by which they have disposed of the representation filed by Mr. Vishnu Prasad approving the said appointment. It can be seen from the said order that the said appointment was in the vacancy created by the re-designation of one Sri. K.N Pradeep Kumar as Peon which arose due to the demise of one Sri. Trideep. It was subject to the condition that as and when the legal heirs of the aforesaid Sri. Trideep approaches for appointment on compassionate ground, the Government to consider such application after completing all legal formalities and for that purpose a suitable post be spared in the college or hospital. It was further provided that if such post is not available, Junior most of the relevant category be thrown from the Direct Payment System giving opportunity to such applicant.

                  10. It is submitted that the 9th Petitioner came under the Direct Payment System in the 3rd respondent hospital w.e.f.11.05.2016 and Government as per GO(Rt) No.200/2019 Ayush dated 02.04.2019 ordered to count the service of the petitioners only from 11.05.2016. Hence the 9th petitioner’s past service and the leave & other service benefits could be counted only from that date i.e., 11.05.2016. Since the 9th petitioner has no enough leave at credit she must repay the excess money drawn by availing Earned Leave.

                  11. It is submitted that the Government and others filed Writ Appeal against the judgement in W.P.(C)No.16437 of 2009 and the same is numbered as W.A.No. 715 of 2019 is under the consideration of Hon'ble High Court.

                  12. It is submitted that the averments of the petitioners in the above paras and the entire W.P.(C) is not valid as per DPS order and DPS agreement. When Direct Payment System was implemented in petitioner's college, the hospital hadn't come under the purview of this system. On the basis of various judgments some employees of the Hospital came under this system. It was the policy decision of the Government on the basis of various judgments. On the basis of the facts revealed in various paragraphs above, all the decisions in this regard are taken by the approval of the Government. Hence the arguments of the petitioners are not sustainable. As per the directions given in the Interim Order 25.04.2023 of this WP(C), the matter is informed to the 2nd respondent not to deduct the contribution from the salary of the petitioners towards National Pension Scheme.

                  13. It is submitted that Ext.P20 order issued by the Government has not Violated the directions in Ext.P19 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Ext.P14 judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court. As per Ext.P17 order one Sri. Vishnu Prasad appointed in the post of Watcher in the 3rd respondent Hospital subject to the condition that as and when the legal heir of Sri. Trideep C (Late) approaches for appointment on Compassionate ground, the Management will take suitable action as per the decision of the Government to consider such application after completing all legal formalities. For this purpose a suitable post has to be spared in the College or Hospital. If such a post is not available, the junior most of the relevant category should be thrown out from Direct Payment System giving opportunity to such applicant. So the argument of the petitioner to consider the issue in the light of Ext.P17 order is unsustainable.

                  14. The main contention of the petitioners is to regularise their service with effect from the date of appointment (01.01.2000) with all consequential benefits. These petitioners were included in Direct Payment System from 11.05.2016 and hence their service is only from 11.05.2016. So the petitioners' request for regularising their service with effect from the date of implementation of the Direct Payment System is not admissible”.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2025 dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 5 to 5.2 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

                  “5. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2009 cancelling the Direct Payment System as supernumeraries to the petitioners, three petitioners out of nine filed W.P.(C) No.606 of 2013 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 08.01.2023 directed the State Government to hold negotiations with the College and the petitioners and evolve a system to ensure payment of salary and allowances to the petitioners, having regard to the fact that their appointments were lawfully made based on need in Dr Padiyar Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College. An appropriate decision was to be taken by the Government within a period of one month. The petitioners were also directed to work without claiming salary and allowances.

                  5.1 The said writ petition was finally decided vide judgment dated 30.10.2015, and the petitioners were held to be entitled to salary, which was to be paid by the Government. The petitioners were allowed to sign the muster roll and work. This judgment came to be complied with vide Government Order dated 11.05.2016, and the petitioners were brought into the Direct Payment System with effect from the issuance of the Government Order dated 11.05.2016.

                  5.2 Against the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.606 of 2013 and other connected writ petitions, the Government filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench and the Division Bench vide judgment dated 21.06.2018, disposed of the said Writ Appeals by observing as follows:

                  “22. Since we notice that the writ petitioners have been serving in the hospital as early as from the year 1998-1999 and that they were paid salary, at least until the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the scales applicable to those under the DPS, we leave it open to the petitioners to approach the competent Authority of the Government with an apposite representation detailing all their claims and to seek such reliefs, as they are desirous, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such a representation is received by the competent Authority from the writ petitioners within the time granted herein, it will be obligated to consider the same, adverting specifically to the contentions of the writ petitioners hinged on Exts.P20 and P21 Government Orders, produced in W.A. No.1823 of 2017, as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

                  23. We clarify that we are not in any manner concluding regarding the entitlement of the writ petitioners’ to the DPS benefit prior to 11.05.2016, being the date of which the Government has issued the present order, bringing them under the ambit of DPS and we leave all such issues to be decided by the Government, after hearing the petitioners appropriately.”

5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that in Ext.P14 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court found that in view of the subsequent decision, the Government has changed its earlier policy or adopted a new one from the date of the said orders, which were produced as Exts.P20 and P21 in that writ appeal. Therefore, the Government ought to have given regularisation to the appellants at least from 2008 onwards. This issue, though specifically pleaded, was omitted to be taken note of by the learned Single Judge. By Ext.P17 order, the Government had approved the appointment made in the Hospital to the post of Watcher with effect from 01.07.2008. But in Ext.P20 order dated 29.03.2023, there was no reference to Ext.P17 order, though this Court repeatedly directed to consider the issue in the light of Ext.P17 order. The learned Single Judge went wrong in holding that the appellants were not permanent employees of the College/Hospital. Similarly, the learned Single Judge went wrong in relying upon the finding in Ext.P20 Government order pertaining to excess staff in the College. In fact, the Government has no such case at any point in time, and moreover the appellants had produced Ext.P21 order issued by the Principal and Controlling Officer of the Government Homoeopathy Medical College dated 21.01.2023 to substantiate that the staff are not in excess when compared to other Homoeopathy Medical Colleges which were brought under the DPS. It is revealed from Ext.P21 that the Government had granted approval for 63 non-teaching staff with effect from the date of the introduction of DPS in the 3rd respondent College.

8. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would submit that it is in pursuance of Ext.P12 judgment dated 30.10.2015 in W.P.(C)No.606 of 2013 and connected cases, the Government included the appellants in DPS as per Ext.P13 order dated 11.05.2016. Therefore, we need not go back to the stage prior to 11.05.2016.

9. The learned Senior Government pleader would submit that Ext.P20 order issued by the Government has not been violated either Ext.P14 or Ext.P19 judgments. Ext.P17 order was one pertaining to an appointment in the post of Watcher in the 3rd respondent Hospital, subject to the condition that, as and when the legal heirs of a deceased employee approached on compassionate grounds, the management will take suitable action as per the decision of the Government to consider such application after completing all legal formalities. For this purpose, a suitable post has to be spared in the College or Hospital. If such a post is not available, the junior-most of the relevant category should be thrown out of DPS, giving an opportunity to such an applicant. Therefore, the issue cannot be considered in the light of Ext.P17 order as contended by the appellants.

10. We have carefully perused the pleadings and materials on record and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar. The appellants, who were employed as daily wage LD Clerks, Pharmacists and Medical Officers, respectively, in the Hospital attached to the 3rd respondent College, have been litigating from the year 2000 onwards, challenging their exclusion from the DPS, which was introduced by the Government in the College with effect from 01.01.2000. The litigations mooted by the appellants can be divided into two stages, that is, the first one till Ext.P7 judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1152 - 1153 of 2009 and the second one from Ext.P13 order dated 11.05.2016 of the Government, including them in the DPS.

11. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 03.03.2005 in O.P No.25592 of 2000, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Government to consider the case of 11 petitioners in that original petition, including the appellants herein also, for granting similar treatment as meted out to others, vide Government Orders dated 06.10.2000 and 25.01.2002. The writ appeal filed by the Government against Ext.P5 judgment ended in dismissal, vide Ext.P6 judgment dated 17.06.2005 in W.A.No.1530 of 2004. However, by Ext.P7 judgment dated 23.02.2009, the SLP Nos.19951 of 2005 and 19952 of 2005 filed by the Government against Exts.P5 and P6 judgments were allowed. In Ext.P7 judgment, the Apex Court held that the Court could not direct over inclusion of the staff as it involves financial implications.

12. In view of Ext.P7 judgment of the Apex Court, the Government, by Ext.P8 order dated 18.12.2009, excluded the appellants from the post of supernumeraries and rejected the request for disbursing arrears of salary for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2004. Thereafter, the 5th appellant made a complaint before the Human Rights Commission and by Ext.P9 proceedings dated 03.11.2012, the Human Rights Commission held that the appellants should be paid salary-wages as notified under the minimum wages for hospital and their services cannot be dispensed with except by the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act. They should be allowed to sign the register. On receipt of Ext.P9 proceedings, the college issued an order dated 31.12.2012 regarding cessation of service of the appellants. The appellants 1 to 3 challenged the decision of the college by filing W.P(C)No.606 of 2013 before this Court. By Ext.P11 interim order dated 08.01.2013, the learned Single Judge directed the management to retain the appellants 1 to 3 and the State of Kerala was directed to hold negotiations to evolve a scheme for salary and allowances to the appellants. Thereafter, vide Ext.P12 judgment dated 30.10.2015, W.P(C)No.606 of 2013 and connected cases were allowed by this Court declaring that the appellants 1 to 3 are entitled to salary as in the case of the other 16 employees employed in the hospital who are being paid salary by the Government. It was thereafter, Ext.P13 Government Order dated 11.05.2016 was passed, including the appellants in DPS as per the conditions laid down in G.O.(MS) No.99/2013/H & FWD dated 22.03.2013.

13. Even after the issuance of Ext.P13 order, Ext.P12 judgment was challenged by the Government in W.A.No.1823 of 2017. By Ext.P14 judgment dated 21.06.2018, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal holding that the question as to whether the appellants would be entitled to any benefit under the DPS for the period prior to 11.05.2016 is a matter to be looked into by the Government. In Ext.P14 judgment, this Court directed the appellants to make a representation to the Government highlighting the grievances and the Government was directed to consider the same, taking into account the Government orders produced as Exts.P20 and P21 in that writ appeal. Though the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.606 of 2013 preferred an SLP before the Apex court challenging Ext.P14 judgment and a curative petition against the orders in Civil Appeal No.1152 of 2009, both ended in dismissal.

14. In compliance with the directions issued in Ext.P14 judgment, all the appellants, except the 10th appellant, submitted Ext.P15 representation dated 10.07.2018, which resulted in Ext.P16 order dated 02.04.2019 by which the Government declined the claim of the appellants to regularise their service with effect from the date of appointment with all consequential benefits. In Ext.P16 order, the Government took into consideration the fact that the date of effect of service of the appellants is only from 11.05.2016 by virtue of Ext.P13 order and hence their service cannot be regularised with effect from the date of implementation of DPS. Thereafter, some of the appellants filed W.P.(C)Nos.20688 of 2019 and 32496 of 2019 before this Court, challenging Exts.P16 and P18. By Ext.P19 judgment dated 14.11.2022, this Court directed the Government to take a decision for the inclusion of the appellants in the DPS prior to 11.05.2016. Thereafter, the impugned Ext.P20 order was passed by the Government rejecting the claim of the appellants.

15. As discussed above, by Ext.P7 judgment, the Apex Court had already rejected the claim of the appellants for inclusion in the DPS. It was thereafter Ext.P13 order was passed by the Government in pursuance of the directions in Ext.P12 judgment of this Court. Even after that Ext.P12 judgment was challenged by the Government in a writ appeal, which resulted in Ext.P14 judgment.

16. The appointment of the appellants was as daily wage employees. The DPS was introduced in the college as per Ext.P1 order dated 25.04.2000 of the Government. However, the claim of the appellants was not considered favourably by the Government, till Ext.P13 order on 11.05.2016. Though there is an observation in Ext.P14 judgment that there is a change in the policy of the Government even in the year 2008, the filing of writ appeal against Ext.P12 judgment even after Ext.P13 order would show that the Government had not taken any stand against the policy decision which was noted by the Apex Court in Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore, the aforesaid observation in Ext.P14 judgment can only be treated as an obiter dicta. Hence, the appellants can claim the benefit of regular appointment only with effect from Ext.P13 order dated 11.05.2016. The learned Single Judge has correctly analysed these aspects and passed the impugned judgment.

                  Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference of this Court by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.