R. Govindarajan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2018 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. No.49271 of 2006 R.Govindarajan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to The Government Industries Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Chairman Cauvery Basin Refinery Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (Reg. Office) 536, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
3.The General Manager Cauvery Basin Refinery 536, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to absorb the petitioner on permanent basis in their company w.e.f. 09.10.2000 with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Balasubramanian For Respondents:
Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan [For R1] Additional Government Pleader Mr.A.Jenasenan [For R2 & R3]
O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to absorb the petitioner on permanent basis in their company w.e.f. 09.10.2000 with all consequential benefits.
2.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner himself admitted the fact that a writ appeal No.188 of 1999 was filed and the same was disposed of on 10.08.2000 in the following terms:- "At the outset, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly suggested that though regular appointment cannot be given to the appellant/petitioner, the Management would make all efforts to see that the appellant /petitioner is accommodated by any of the Contrators."
2.In view of that, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the writ appeal. 3.We hope that the management would take sincere steps within two months from today to do the needful and to get the petitioner appointed as far as possible and commensurate to his qualifications.
4.With this Writ Appeal is disposed of"
3.When the petitioner himself has admitted and served as a contract labourer, now, he cannot be turned back and sought for permanent absorption. Further, the employees appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force can be absorbed permanently or their services can be regularized. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also laid down the legal principles in the matter of permanent absorption and regularization in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi and Others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. Thus, regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be granted in the cases where initial appointments were not in accordance with law.
5.Admittedly, in the present case the initial appointment was made on contract basis. Mere length of service cannot be a ground to seek regularisation. The writ petitioner has agreed to serve as contract employee and such an undertaking was given by the writ petitioner even before the Hon'ble Division Bench in the writ appeal No.188 of 1999.
6.Under these circumstances, the relief as such sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS ) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
maya To 1.The Secretary to The Government Industries Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Chairman Cauvery Basin Refinery Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (Reg. Office) 536, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
3.The General Manager Cauvery Basin Refinery 536, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
+ 2 ccs to MR. S. Balasubramanian, Advocate Sr.43001 + 1 cc to MR. A. Jenasenan, Advocate Sr.4788 + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.9040 W.P. No. 49271 of 2006 SR(CO) EU(17/02/2018)