Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2129 (MAD)

M. Thavamani v. Principal Secretary to Government

2012-04-27

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to regularize the petitioner's services as Full Time Masalgi with all consequential, service and monetary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Masalgi in Usilampatti Panchayat Union, Madurai in an existing vacancy on 01.03.1997. The petitioner has been continuously working as Masalgi from that date and his name has been recommended by the Director of Rural Development, Chennai for regularising his services as Masalgi. The petitioner has made representation to the Government on 26.03.2012 requesting to regularise his services in terms of G.O. Ms. No.22, P and AR Department dated 28.02.2006, but till date no order has been passed by the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR Department, dated 28.2.2006 and ordered to regularise the services of those persons working on temporary basis, on their completion of ten years of service and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get his services regularised with time scale of pay on completion of ten years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that similar writ petitions were allowed by this Court, which were also confirmed by the Division Bench in writ appeals and subsequently, the said orders were also implemented by the respondents. 4. 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.Nos.22, dated 28.02.2006, and held that on completion of ten years of service, services of a part-time employee shall be regularised 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 regularisation 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 regularise the services of the respondent. 8.) We do not find any force in the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate. When the proposals are pending under consideration before the Government, there is no need to give any direction to the Government to regularise 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 28.2.2006, reads as follows: "3.) The Departments of Secretariat may therefore be directed to pursue action to regularise 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 regularisation 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 regularise the part time employees, who had completed 10 years of service. In fact, the services of some of the part time employees were regularised 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 regularisation of the services of the respondent by saying that the proposal for regularisation 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 of 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. 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, way 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 G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.2.2006, 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 regularisation 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 appellant-Director 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. (vii) Common Order in WP Nos. 27488 to 27490, 27162, 27163, 26888, 26991 & 27309 of 2010 dated 02.10.2010 implemented through G.O. Ms. No.99, School Education Department, dated 08.06.2011 and G.O. Ms. No.121, School Education Department dated 08.08.2011. (viii) 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. (vii) Common Order in WP Nos. 27488 to 27490, 27162, 27163, 26888, 26991 & 27309 of 2010 dated 02.10.2010 implemented through G.O. Ms. No.99, School Education Department, dated 08.06.2011 and G.O. Ms. No.121, School Education Department dated 08.08.2011. (viii) 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. It is relevant to note that the order in W.P. No. 4859 of 2009 passed by T.S.Sivagnanam,J., was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1520 of 2010 on 25.10.2010 and in SLP No. 8231/2011 dated 12.05.2011 and it was also implemented in G.O. Ms. No.123 dated 17.08.2011. Pursuant to the same, this Court ordered regularisation from the date of appointment and the petitioner therein was granted regularisation from 1990 with arrears of pay on full time basis. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue is covered by the decisions cited supra and appropriate orders may be passed. On perusal of the above referred orders, it is evident that persons similarly placed were granted regularisation of their services on completion of 10 years of service by relaxing the rule whenever required in terms of G.O. Ms. No.22, P&AR Department dated 28.02.2006 and they were paid arrears of full time salary. The Government having passed the order, the same has to be applied to all similarly placed persons without any discrimination. 7. Applying the above said orders passed by this Court to the facts of the case, the writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on his completion of ten years of service with time scale of pay. The regularisation orders are directed to be passed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of salary, payable to the petitioner, pursuant to his regularisation, shall be paid to him within a period of four weeks therefrom. No costs.