JUDGMENT : P.M. Manoj, J. Dated this the 17 th day of March, 2026 All the writ petitions are filed by persons employed at the Girls’ Child Home under the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat who are aggrieved by the non-disbursement of their salaries. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions contend that the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat has mooted a project called the Snehatheeram Integrated Child Protection Scheme. For the purpose of running the project, a notification was issued by the Grama Panchayat through Ext. P2 in W.P.(C) No. 10049 of 2019. It appears that the Panchayat invited applications from candidates for the appointment of staff under various categories such as Superintendent, Counsellor, Probation Officer, Case Worker, Storekeeper, Accountant, House Mother, Caretaker, Paramedical Staff, Nurse, Cook, Caregiver(aaya), Housekeeping Staff, Watchman, etc. 3. It is stated in the said notification that details will be made available by the Panchayat. The intimation card bears the seal of the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and, from Ext.P7 appointment order in W.P.(C) Nos.9715 and 17724 of 2018 and Ext.P3 appointment order in W.P.(C) No. 10049 of 2019, it appears that the interview was conducted on 10.09.2015 and 11.09.2015, and the appointment was made with effect from 16.09.2015. However, the said appointment orders were signed by the petitioners only on 06.11.2015. In this regard, the petitioners have already approached the SC/ST Commission and the Human Rights Commission. In all those proceedings, directions were issued directing payment of remuneration to the petitioners. Even now, payment has not been effected. 4. However, the 3 rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.9715 of 2018, who is the Chairperson of the Home Governing Council has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is specifically stated that the said respondent acted as a Chairman of the Home Governing Council for a period of three months from 31.10.2015. All the employees of the institution were selected and appointed by the Grama Panchayat and the 3 rd respondent signed the appointment orders as Chairperson of the Home Governing Council on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, Grama Panchayat. The 3 rd respondent signed the appointment orders when then Secretary of the Grama Panchayat refused to do so. It is contended that the responsibility to appoint employees and issue appointment orders rests with the 2 nd respondent Panchayat. The 3 rd respondent signed the appointment orders when then Secretary of the Grama Panchayat refused to do so. It is contended that the responsibility to appoint employees and issue appointment orders rests with the 2 nd respondent Panchayat. It was only in the circumstances where the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat refused to sign the appointment orders that, to overcome the difficult situation, the 3rd respondent acted as authorized by the Home Management Committee and the authorities under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2000 (in short “the Act”). 5. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader, on the strength of the counter affidavit filed by the Director of Women and Child Development, that the Snehatheeram Girl Child Home was registered on 20.08.2015 under the name Mayyanad Grama Panchayat, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act. The said provision mandates that all institutions providing care and protection to children in need of care and protection shall obtain registration under the Act. It is further submitted that registration under the above statutory provision does not, by itself, confer Government ownership, management control, or financial liability. The purpose of registration is regulatory in nature to ensure compliance with the standards prescribed under the Act. 6. On perusal of the appointment order issued to the petitioner, it is evident that the appointing authority is the “Snehatheeram Home Governing Council”, and the said appointment letters itself shows that the institution is being run by Mayyanad Grama Panchayat in association with HELP Foundation, with support of Janasakthi. The appointment orders were not issued by the State Government or any Department under the Government. From that, it is submitted that the institution is managed by the “Snehatheeram Home Governing Council”, which was formed jointly by Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and HELP Foundation. The State Government has not constituted the institution, nor does it exercise administrative control over its day- to-day functioning. Therefore, it is contended the State Government has no financial or administrative commitment towards the running or management of the said institution, except to the extent of its statutory regulatory role under the Act. Five children from the Panchayat area belonging to the ‘Children in Need of Care and Protection’ category were admitted under the said scheme. Therefore, it is contended the State Government has no financial or administrative commitment towards the running or management of the said institution, except to the extent of its statutory regulatory role under the Act. Five children from the Panchayat area belonging to the ‘Children in Need of Care and Protection’ category were admitted under the said scheme. Later, as per the orders of the Child Welfare Committee, girl children from various parts of Kollam District were also admitted and given care and protection in the home. 7. The institution was started with the financial support of the Panchayat, problems later arose in getting funds due to issues between the Panchayat and the NGO after a change in the Panchayat Administration. Because of this, food supplies were arranged on credit basis and salary disbursement to staff was also affected. 8. It is also further contended that the Superintendent (in charge) of Girls Child Home, has reported that the institution is presently functioning and being run by the NGO Mahila Samakhya Society. The salaries of staff are being presently paid from the grant provided by the Grama Panchayat, to the NGO Mahilla Samakhya Society which is managing the institution. 9. In response to the contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that the scheme is not run by the Panchayat but by the NGO, and that appointments were effected by the 3rd respondent. Even from Ext. P7 in W.P.(C) No. 9715 of 2018, it appears that the appointment letters were signed by the 3 rd respondent; therefore, the Panchayat has no role in granting salary to the petitioners in these writ petitions. It is further contended that all the petitioners in the three writ petitions were not properly discharging their duties. These are the circumstances under which payments were not effected. 10. I have heard Sri. Murali Madanthacodu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. R. Sasith, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and Sri. S. Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent in W.P.(C) Nos. 9715 and 17724 of 2018. I have also heard Sri. G. Sivasankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10049 of 2019, and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned counsel for the official respondents in all the writ petitions. 11. S. Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent in W.P.(C) Nos. 9715 and 17724 of 2018. I have also heard Sri. G. Sivasankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10049 of 2019, and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned counsel for the official respondents in all the writ petitions. 11. Going by the contentions and perusal of the records, it appears that the project was originally mooted at the instance of the 2 nd respondent Grama Panchayat, as is evident from Ext.P1. The paper publication inviting applications for appointment also shows that the project was mooted by the Panchayat. The interview invitation was also issued at the instance of the Panchayat, as is evident from W.P.(C) Nos. 9715 and 17724 of 2018. However, Ext.P7 appointment letter was signed by the 3 rd respondent, who is the Chairperson of the Snehatheeram Home Governing Council. 13. Having regard to the contention raised by the 3 rd respondent, it appears that, in a particular situation, when the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat had not signed the appointment letters due to a difference of opinion, the 3rd respondent was compelled to sign them. The appointments were effected from 16.09.2015, however, the appointment letters were signed only pursuant to the agreement on 06.11.2015, that is, after two months. From this, it is evident that Ext.P7 appointment letter is not decisive in determining who the appointing authority is. Moreover, the Government, by filing a counter affidavit, submitted that the entire project was mooted by the Panchayat with the assistance of NGOs and that even now the project is being run by the Panchayat with the assistance of NGOs. Under such circumstances, I have no doubt as to the authority of the Panchayat in appointing the petitioners, and therefore it is concluded that the Panchayat is the appointing authority and is liable to pay the salaries due to the petitioners in arrears up to the date of this judgment, together with statutory interest. The arrears shall be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.