← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/17594/2024disposed of

Jeyanthi v. The Secretary

2024-07-30Honourable Ms Justice R.N.Manjula6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Jeyanthi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Registrar, Madurai Kamarajar University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai-625 021.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to regularize the petitioners service from the date of completion of Ten years of her service i.e., on 02.01.1995 with all monetary and service benefits to the petitioner on the basis of the syndicate resolution, 2005.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For R1 : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy 1/6

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners service from the date of completion of Ten years of her service i.e., on 02.01.1995 with all monetary and service benefits to the petitioner on the basis of the syndicate resolution, 2005.

2. Heard Mr.K.Navaneetharaja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Typist in the respondent university on 02.01.1985. While so, the syndicate has passed a resolution on 12.08.2005 by recommending to allow regular time scale of pay for the casual labourers and the persons engaged on consolidated pay. However, the same was not implemented. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk based on the written test and interview and then promoted to the post of Assistant and Superintendent and retired from service on 31.07.2019. 2/6

4.Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University had resolved to include half of the services rendered in the University prior to regular appointment for pensionary benefits insofar as the employees who were appointed on 14.11.2005. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 24.01.2020 to fix his seniority from the date when he was originally appointed i.e., on 02.01.1985. However, the same was not considered. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was originally appointed on daily wage basis on 02.01.1985 in the second respondent University. In view of the resolution of the Syndicate and in terms of Section 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, half of the services rendered by the petitioner prior to regular appointment should be included for regular service benefits.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue is no longer a res integra and is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. (MD) No.13946 of 2024, dated 28.06.2024. While dealing with the same issue, this Court has observed in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 held as follows:- "7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the year 2008, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in WP No.10212/2000, wherein an order came to be passed on 3/6

23.01.2003, by which, a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation seeking regularization. He further submitted that at that point of time, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the request of the petitioner will be considered whenever vacancy arises in the university. By citing the above order, it is claimed by the petitioner that he had agitated the matter even in the year 2000 and as per the submission made on behalf of the respondents, it would only show that at that point of time, the petitioner had already completed 10 years of service, ie., even in the year 2000, when the writ petition was filed or in the year 2003 when the order was passed.

8. Even though the petitioner cited the minutes of the meeting dated 12.08.2005, the minutes do not have the list of 72 persons, for whose benefits the resolution has been passed. The only submission now made is that the petitioner had filed a writ petition even in the year 2000. itself for regularizing his services and the respondent University has made a submission that his request would be considered whenever vacancy arises. However, in the said order, the petitioner has not stated that he has completed 10 years of service with effect from the particular point of time. "

7.Since the petitioner herein is also similarly placed as that of the petitioner in the above writ petition, this petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

4/6

8. Accordingly, following the earlier decision of this Court supra (W.P.(MD)No.13946 of 2024, dated 28.06.2024), this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.05.2024. The petitioner is also at liberty to raise whatever contentions that he made in the writ petition by giving an additional representation. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 30.07.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no ta To 1.The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Registrar, Madurai Kamarajar University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai-625 021.

5/6

R.N.MANJULA, J.

ta 30.07.2024 6/6