The Secretary To Government v. D.Ramakrishnan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.A.[MD].No.1630 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12331 of 2016 1.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Engineer -in- Chief (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organization, Madurai Region, Madurai.
: Appellants/Respondents Vs.
D.Ramakrishnan : Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15.06.2016, made in W.P.(MD).No.12389 of 2014. Prayer in WP(MD). 12389/ 2014 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the files of the 1st respondent pertaining to its order in Letter No. 22622/C2/2012-8 dated 17.01.2014 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularises the service of the petitioner and to grant all monetary in service within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court. For Appellants : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
JUDGMENT
************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J.] This Writ Appeal is directed as against the order of this Court dated 15.06.2016, made in W.P.(MD).No.12389 of 2014.
2. The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that he was appointed as a Daily Wages Mazdoor Grade-I by the third appellant herein as early as on 01.04.1996. He was paid Rs.47/- as daily wages. He was working for a quite long time and finding no symptom of regularization, he has approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal along with 14 others by filing O.A.No.8146 of 1999, seeking a prayer to direct the appellants herein to appoint or absorb the applicants as Irrigation Assistants or in any eligible post in the regular time scale of pay in any of the existing or next arising vacancies with reference to their services rendered as NMRs. The said Original Application was transferred to the Principal Seat of this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.38509 of 2006. By order dated 26.02.
2010, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners therein to make representations seeking regularization with a further direction to the respondents therein, to pass orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representations.
3. It is the further case of the respondent that he made a representation seeking regularization or absorption. During the pendency of the said representation, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.334, dated 19.10.2007, regularizing 1056 members. Again, one another G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 07.05.2010, was issued proposing to regularize another 985 persons, but, only 746 persons were regularized. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 01.08.2012 was also issued regularizing the services of the rest of the persons, but the name of the respondent was not found in the list of the persons for regularization. Hence, the respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.
6552 of 2010, seeking for a Mandamus, directing the second appellant to regularize his services in the cadre of daily wage employee, based on the proposal sent by the third appellant in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C-4/895/06, dated 28.08.2006. When the said Writ Petition was taken up for hearing on 22.08.2012, a direction was issued to the second appellant to send a proposal to the first appellant and get appropriate orders on the same within a period of three months. Finally, the first appellant passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2014, rejecting the request of the respondent seeking regularization, by referring to G.O.Ms.No.74 (P&AR Department), dated 27.06.
Department. The said proposal is a policy decision of the Government and it will take some more time to take a decision on it, which involves huge financial commitment to the Government exchequer. Questioning the same, the respondent has filed the Writ Petition.
4. The learned Single Judge, by considering the submissions made on either side, has allowed the Writ Petition holding that pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2012, in W.P.No.37024 of 2006, five persons were regularized and since the respondent has completed 20 long years of service, the first appellant cannot have any hesitation to regularize his services by applying G.O. (2D)No.29, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2016. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants are before this Court with the present Writ Appeal.
5. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the only submission put forth by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants is that G.O.(2D)No.29, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2016, was issued, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.37024 of 2006, dated 20.06.2012, to regularize the services of five employees and hence, the said Government Order cannot be applied to the respondent in this case. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
6. Countering the said submission, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that by G.O.(2D)No.29, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2016, the appellants have regularized the services of five employees, who are on par with the respondent herein. Therefore, the respondent is also entitled to the same benefit. In such circumstances, no infirmity could be found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. We find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
8. In our considered view, when the appellants have chosen to regularize the services of five employees, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, dated 20.06.2012, in W.P.No.37024 of 2006, by applying the same yardstick, the services of the respondent should also be regularized. In fact, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to regularize the services of the respondent, by applying G.O.(2D)No.29, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 09.02.2016. Moreover, we are also informed that the respondent is continuously working for more than 20 years. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, finding no merit, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to implement the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.06.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.12389 of 2014, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar SML To, 1.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Engineer -in- Chief (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organization, Madurai Region, Madurai.
+1CC to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.8972 +1CC to Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Advocate Sr.No.8682 GJM/BS/1.3.17-4p-6c JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.1630 of 2016 Dated: 16.02.2017