Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 3967 (MAD)

S. Sundar v. Chief Engineer (Highways) General

2011-09-14

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. By consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was employed as NMR in the respondents-Department from September, 1991. The petitioner and seven others filed original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of services and the Tribunal passed order on 29.6.1999 directing the petitioner and other persons to submit representation to the first respondent herein and the Department to dispose of the representation within a period of eight weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation dated 16.8.1999 and a report was called for by the first respondent regarding the details of employment of petitioner as NMR as on 31.5.2001. The report was submitted by the third respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner worked as NMR for 9 years 9 months and 22 days from 1.9.1991 upto 31.5.2001. The third respondent passed the order dated 3.7.2006 stating that the petitioner served only for 6 years and 8 months and therefore his services could not be regularised. The petitioner filed W.P.No.23302 of 2006 to quash the said order dated 3.7.2006 of the third respondent and for a direction to regularise his services. The writ petition in W.P.No.23302 of 2006 was disposed of on 10.8.2010 by quashing the said order dated 3.7.2006 and to pass a fresh order. Again the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.9.2010 on the same lines, refusing to regularize the services of the petitioner stating that he worked for 6 years and 8 months and as per G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.2.2006 he is not entitled for regularization. The said order is questioned in this writ petition. 4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while quashing the order dated 3.7.2006, this Court categorically held that even as per the report given by the third respondent, the petitioner worked for 9 years 9 months from 1.9.1991 to 31.5.2001 and the first respondent sought report as on 31.5.2001. It is also recorded that if service after 31.5.2001 is taken into account, the petitioner completed more than 10 years. It is also recorded that if service after 31.5.2001 is taken into account, the petitioner completed more than 10 years. The learned Judge held that G.O.Ms.No.22 P & R Department dated 28.2.2006 contemplates 10 years of service as on 21.10.2006 and the Government order does not contemplate continuous service as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the Order dated 3.8.2009 in W.A.No.230 of 2009. The learned Judge also noted that the Special Leave Petition filed against that order was also dismissed by the Honourable Apex Court. However, while quashing the order, the learned Judge remanded the matter to the third respondent to pass fresh orders. 5. The order dated 10.8.2010 passed in W.P.No.23302 of 2006 is extracted hereunder: "The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 03.07.2006 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not continuously worked for 10 years. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a NMR from September 1991 and he was paid salary fixed by the Government on daily rate basis. The petitioner and seven other persons filed Original Application before the tribunal in M.A.No.2805 of 1999 and the tribunal by order dated 29.6.1999 directed the petitioner and other persons to submit a representation and the Department was directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.8.1999 and a report was called by the 1st respondent regarding the details of person working as NMR as on 31.5.2001. The report was submitted by the third respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner worked as NMR from 1.9.1991 and till 31.5.2001 the petitioner served for 9 years 9 months and 22 days. The copy of the report and details is available in page 6 of the typed set filed alongwith the writ petition. The impugned order is passed by the third respondent stating that the petitioner has actually worked only for 6 years 8 months and therefore his services could not be regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.22 P & AR Department dated 28.2.2006. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is the competent authority to pass orders. 3. The impugned order is passed by the third respondent stating that the petitioner has actually worked only for 6 years 8 months and therefore his services could not be regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.22 P & AR Department dated 28.2.2006. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is the competent authority to pass orders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was permitted to serve as NMR till February 2002 and if the period beyond 31.5.2001 is accounted, the petitioner has served for more than 10 years and therefore he is entitled to get his services regularised as per G.O.Ms.N.22 P & AR dated 28.2.2006. In Writ Appeal No.230 of 2009 order dated 3.8.2009, the Division Bench held that persons completing 10 years service are entitled to get their services regularised on the date of completion of 10 years of service. S.L.P filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said order is implemented by the Government. 4. The said Government order nowhere states that the services should be continuous and had only ordered that persons who have rendered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 are to be given regular employment in relaxation of the Rules. Taking note of the said G.O., the impugned order passed by the third respondent cannot be sustained and therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to consider the service details furnished by the third respondent as early as on 31.5.2001 as well as the subsequent services rendered by the petitioner as NMR till February 2002 as the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service and pass fresh orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with above direction. No costs." 6. However, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.9.2010 and the same is extracted hereunder: "TAMIL" 7. In my view, the impugned order dated 29.9.2010 is liable to be quashed in view of the aforesaid Order in W.P.No.23302 of 2006. The learned Judge has found that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as per G.O.Ms.N.22 P & AR dated 28.2.2006. However, the learned Judge left the matter to the third respondent to pass orders. In my view, the impugned order dated 29.9.2010 is liable to be quashed in view of the aforesaid Order in W.P.No.23302 of 2006. The learned Judge has found that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as per G.O.Ms.N.22 P & AR dated 28.2.2006. However, the learned Judge left the matter to the third respondent to pass orders. But the third respondent again passed the same order like the order that has been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.23302 of 2006. 8. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.9.2010 is quashed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner on completion of 10 years of service with all benefits as per G.O.Ms.N.22 P & AR dated 28.2.2006. The respondents are also directed to complete the exercise within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.