The State Of Tamilnadu v. S.Kuppuraj,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.11.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.A No.719 of 2016 and CMP No.9448 of 2016 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Highways Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Chief Engineer (General) Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Erode District.
...Appellants Vs S.Kuppuraj
...Respondent
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P.No.20668 of 2012 dated 01.08.2012. WP.No.20668 of 2012:Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner as Watchman in the 3rd respondent office as per G.O.No.22 dated on 28.2.2006 in consonance with the orders passed by this Honourable Court in W.P.No.36623/ 2004 dated 9.12.2005 which was upheld by the Division bench of this Honourable Court in W.A.No.1260/ 2008 dated 11.12.2009 and confirmed by the Supreme Court in C.C.No.14093/2010 dated 27.9.2010 For Appellant : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi Special Govt. Pleader For Respondents: No appearance
J U D G M E N T
K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.
The respondent filed a writ petition to regularise his service as Watchman pursuant to the order in G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28 February, 2006. The learned Special Government Pleader admitted before the Writ Court that the issue is covered by various decisions and as such, the respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Government Order. The learned single Judge by placing reliance on the earlier decisions allowed the writ petition. The order is under challenge at the instance of the Government on the ground that the respondent was not having the required service for regularisation.
2. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. The respondent was initially appointed as Watchman on daily wages. The initial appointment was in 1988. The respondent continued his employment for about 24 years. In the mean time, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28 February, 2006 directing regularisation of service of those persons who were working on temporary basis on completion of 10 years of service. Since the respondent completed 10 years of service, the learned single Judge issued a Mandamus and that too after hearing the Government Pleader.
4. The appellants have come up with this appeal primarily on the ground that when the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.22 was issued, the respondent was not in service. There is absolutely no merit in the said contention. The appellant engaged the respondent continuously and by giving an artificial break. This break was given to see that no claim for regularisation was made by the employee. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.22 was issued to regularise the service of those who continue to occupy the post temporarily. The respondent completed more than 10 years of service and as such, he was fully eligible for regularisation. The learned single Judge has given sufficient reasons for giving direction to the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent. We do not find any error or illegality in the said order warranting interference.
5. In the up shot, we dismiss the intra court appeal. The appellants are directed to pass order for regularistiaon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar svki To 1.The Chief Engineer(General )Highways Department Chepauk Chennai 600 005 2.The Secretary to Government Highways Department Chennai- 600 009 3.The Divisional Engineer Highways Department, Erode District copy to S.Kuppuraj S/o.Sundararajan No.10/84 C.S.I.Street Nasiyanoor Erode District (BY Registered Post) W.A No.719 of 2016 mg(co) aa11/01/2018