A.Pandaram, S/O.P.Angappan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.(MD)No.15800 of 2016
1. A.Pandaram
2. N.Veerapandian
3. S.Chinnadurai
4. S.Krishnan
5. P.Petchi
6. S.Shanmugavelu
7. K.Subbiah
8. K.Sudalaimuthu
9. V.Ponraj 10.V.Thirumani 11.S.Chellathurai
...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department(Buildings) & General Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Madurai Zone, Madurai - 625 002.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organization, Public Works Department, Thamiraparani Basin Circle, Tirunelveli.
5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Thamiraparani Basin Division, Tirunelveli.
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Lower Thamiraparani Basin Sub Division, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to regularize the petitioners' service on completion of their ten(10) years of service on daily wages respectively as stated in the schedule as per the recommendation of the sixth respondent to the fourth respondent in Letter No.Ko.49 of 2010, dated 22.07.2010 in view of the G.O.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 and to confer all the monetary and service benefits to them in the time scale of pay, within the period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate.
***
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to regularize the petitioners' service on completion of their ten(10) years of service on daily wages respectively as stated in schedule as per the recommendation of the sixth respondent to the fourth respondent in Letter No.Ko.49 of 2010, dated 25.10.2010 in view of the G.O.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 and to confer all the monetary and service benefits to them in the time scale of pay, within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. Heard, Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the Writ petition are as follows:- The petitioners are belonging to Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Scheduled Caste etc. The petitioners are engaged as Mazdoor Category-I by the respondents. Nominal Muster Roll was formed and salaries were paid to the petitioners accordingly. The petitioners were treated as Contract workers. Though the petitioners were continuously employed and they have been making several representations to the authorities to regularize the petitioners' services, there was no response. The representation of the petitioner to regularize the petitioners' services upon completion of ten years of service was not considered. However, several individual orders have been passed, based on the direction of this Court in respect of other cases. Despite, the subject being placed before the respondents, the grievance of the petitioners is that they have not considered the request of the petitioners to give relief in tune with various
Government Orders and the orders passed by this Court in similar cases. The sixth respondent prepared necessary papers about the petitioners and also made necessary recommendation for their regularization, by Letter in No.Ko/49/2010, dated 25.10.2010, in view of G.O.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 and forwarded the same to the fourth respondent for further action. However, the respondents 1 and 2 have not passed any orders for their regularization, so far. Hence, the present Writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of F.Gulzar Basha Vs. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai, in W.P.No.8825 of 2011, dated 11.04.2011, wherein, it has been held, as follows:- "3. The case of the petitioner is that he had studied upto 10th standard; he was appointed as Masalgi on 09.02.1996 in the existing vacancy by the Commissioner, Polur Panchayat Union. In the year 2002, he was directed to work as Night Watchman and he was also issued with a certificate that he had completed ten years of service continuously from 09.02.1996. Though as directed by the Government in their proceedings, dated 29.06.2010, the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, third respondent herein included the name of the petitioner in Sl.No.11 mentioning his post as Masalgi with effect from 09.02.1996, till date his service has not yet been regularized.
Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents on 13.09.2000, requesting to regularize his service and till date there is no reply. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29013 of 2010 for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006 and this Court directed the second respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.09.2010. However, the second respondent in his proceedings dated 21.03.2011, rejected his request for regularization of service on the ground that the petitioner was working as part time Masalgi in Panchayat Union under consolidated pay and therefore G.O.Ms. No.22 is not applicable and also on the ground that he had not
completed ten years of service as on 1.1.2006. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 and ordered to regularize those persons working in part time post or in full time post on temporary basis, on their completion of ten years of service and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get his services regularized with time scale of pay on completion of ten years of service.
He furthered submits that similar issues were considered by this court in the following decisions:
(i) W.P.(MD)No.11707 of 2006, dated 22.12.2006, confirmed in W.A.(MD)No.391 of 2007 dated 25.10.2007 and the said order was already implemented by the Department on 30.11.2007.
(ii) W.P.No.18126 of 2008 dated 29.07.2008, confirmed in W.A.No.230 of 2009, dated 03.08.2009, taking note of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006, and held that on completion of ten years of service, services of a party-time employees shall be regularized by the department from the date of completion of ten years. In paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said Judgment, the Division Bench held as follows:- '7. The main submission of the learned Government Advocate is that the proposals for regularization of the part time employees are pending before the Government.
When the proposals are pending under consideration before the Government, there is no need to give any direction to the Government to regularize the services of the respondent.
8. We do not find any force in the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate. On a perusal of the entire materials, it could be seen that the respondent was working for the past 13 years as a part time employee in a Higher Secondary School. Para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.2 P&AR(F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, reads as follows:- '3. The Departments of Secretariat may
therefore be directed to pursue action to regularize the services of the daily wages employees working in all Government Departments, who have rendered 10 years of service as on 1.4.2006. ... '
9. Though in the letter dated 20.02.1995 it has been stated that the regularization shall not apply to the appointment on daily wages employees, if any, made on or after 01.03.1993, in G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR(F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, it was made clear by the Government to regularize the part time employees, who had completed 10 years of service. In fact, the services of some of the part time employees were regularized pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier Writ petitions. Under those circumstances, we do not find any justification in delaying the regularization of the services of the respondent by saying that the proposal for regularization of part time employees is pending for consideration before the Government.
On that ground, the respondent cannot be made to wait for a long period, especially when he had completed 13 years of service, which is more than that os the required service mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006. Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the directions given by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
No costs.
Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. A copy of the order shall be communicated to the State Government (Secretary), School Education Department, to issue the necessary orders in compliance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
The special leave petition in SLP No.1972/2009 filed against the said Judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during March, 2010. The said order was already implemented.
(iii) W.P.No.13499 of 2008, dated 12.06.2008, confirmed in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.A.(SR)No.75291 of 2009, dated 07.10.2009,
wherein, the Division Bench held thus.
'3... We have also noted that even on merits, the first appellant Director of School Education does not have any case. The respondent herein was employed as a Part-Time Sweeper in a Government Girls High School and her appointment was approved by the Inspector of Girls School, Kancheepuram, was back on 19.12.1999. The respondent had prayed for regularization of her services by filing the Writ petition. The learned Single Judge has noted that there is a Government Order in Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, which requires the Government Departments to regularize daily wage employees who have rendered ten years of service as on 1.1.2006. The respondent herein fully satisfied that requirement and had, therefore, prayed her regularization right from the initial date of her appointment.
The learned Single Judge has granted regularization only after her completion of ten years of service, in tune with the above Government order. This being so, in fact on merits, the first appellantDirector of School Education has no reason to have any grievance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, apart from the fact that he does not have any case.'
The said order was also implemented by the department.
(iv) Common order in W.P.(MD)No.9726 and 9727 of 2006, dated 24.06.2008, confirmed in W.A.(MD)No.151 and 225 of 2009, dated 23.06.2009.
The special leave petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.02.2010. The said order was also implemented.
(v) Order in W.P.No.20662 of 2010, dated 15.09.2010 implemented by the DEO, Perambalur on 04.11.2010.
(vi) Order in W.P.No.23080 of 2008, dated 23.12.2008 confirmed in Writ Appeal No.2414 of 2010, dated 26.11.2010.
(vi) Order in W.P.(MD)Nos.1773 and 1774 of 2008, dated 4.12.2008, confirmed in W.A.
(MD)Nos.69 & 70 of 2010, dated 20.1.2011.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that since the issue is covered by
the decisions cited supra, petitioner is entitled to get his services regularised in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR Department, dated 28.02.2006.
6. In view of the said submissions, the Writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on his completion of ten years of service with times scale of pay.
The regularization order is directed to be passed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of pay, payable to the petitioner pursuant to the regularization shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks therefrom. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also produced before this Court, Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.42, Rural Development and Panchayat (Pa.Aa.7) Department, dated 28.06.2011. The Government has dealt with several individual cases and regularize the services of the individuals upon completion of ten years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the Government Order in G.O.(2D).No.4, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 12.01.2012, implementing the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.29013 of 2010, dated 21.12.2010. Again the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.Thavamani Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai, in W.P.No.12040 of 2012, dated 27.04.
2012, wherein the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had conceded the position that the issue is covered by earlier decision of this Court and the Writ petition filed by a person who joined as Masalgi in Usilampatti Panchayat Union, Madurai, in an existing vacancy on 01.03.1997 and continuously working was allowed.
6. Having regard to the fact that the issue has already been answered by this Court in few Judgments and the orders of this Court have already been implemented by the respondents, the contention of the respondents relying upon the specific Government Order, whereby, the Special Time Scale of Pay has been fixed upon completion of three years in service does not hold water. The counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, shows that the respondents have admitted implementation of orders of this Court in individual cases. However, it does not explain how the petitioners can be discriminated by denying the benefit of
previous orders of this court in similar cases.
7. Hence, this Writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners' services on completion of their ten years of service on daily wages, with all other monetary and service benefits in time scale of pay, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department(Buildings) & General Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Madurai Zone, Madurai - 625 002.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organization, Public Works Department, Thamiraparani Basin Circle,Tirunelveli.
5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Thamiraparani Basin Division, Tirunelveli.
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Lower Thamiraparani Basin Sub Division, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.
+1 cc to Mr.A.Haja Mohaideen , Advocate in SR.No. 61823 +1 cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.62038 pmu AE/KP SAR3/20.07.2017/8P/9C ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.15800 of 2016 23.06.2017