Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2896 (MAD)

M. Chinnasamy v. Secretary to Government

2012-07-09

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This order shall disposed of W.P.Nos.14116,14117 and 14118 of 2008 as common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. 2. For the sake of brevity, facts are taken from W.P.No.14116 of 2008. 3. The petitioners in all these writs prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the first respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner as permanent Sanitary worker. 4. It is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners have registered their names with the employment exchange, Coimbatore, and on being sponsored by the employment exchange, petitioners were called for interview for appointment to the post of sanitary worker as substitute worker on 18.12.1989. 5. In all, ten vacancies were available to be filled up by the respondents. The Executive Officer, Anaimalai Special Village Panchayat appointed the petitioners as Sanitary worker against leave vacancies. 6. The submission of the petitioners is that Government of Tamil Nadu issued instructions vide G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 21.05.1998 for regularising the services of the substitute workers. The Government instructions provided that the employees working as Sanitary workers for five to ten years till 31.12.1996, be placed in the consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month, and after one year, they will be placed in regular time scale. 7. The submission of the petitioners is that except the petitioners, all other sanitary workers were regularised in service. The petitioners also filed representations for regularising their services, but no action was taken on the their representations. 8. The petitioners therefore, approached this court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to regularise the service of the petitioners on the post of Sanitary worker. 9. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents, by taking a stand that the petitioners have not been in continuous service of five to ten years, therefore, were not covered under the Government instructions issued vide G.O.Ms.No.84, Dated 21.05.1998. It is pleaded in the counter that the petitioner in W.P.No.14116 of 2008 worked only for 937 days and the petitioner in W.P.No.14117 of 2008 worked only for 618 days whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.14118 of 2009 worked only for 1433 days in 14 years, and performed their duties from 04.06.1996 only against leave vacancy for few days in each month, therefore, they are not covered under the Government instructions. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents have misinterpreted the Government instructions in denying the benefits to the petitioners, as the very object of leave vacancy was to allow an employee to work only when the work is available. Therefore, no distinction can be drawn between an employee, who worked only for three days in a month, and the one who was in continuous employment for five to ten years to be covered under the Government instructions, for grant of consolidated pay and regular pay scale. 11. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. The Government instructions clearly stipulates that an employee should be in continuous service as substitute employee for a period five to ten years till 31.12.1996. The petitioners admittedly, worked for only few days in a month against available vacancy during all these years. They cannot therefore be equated with the employees who were in continuous service for five to ten years to claim discrimination. 12. Not only this, in the counter it is pointed out, that the petitioners were habitual absentees since 2004. Even on this ground, the petitioners are not entitled to relief of regular pay scale. The petitioners do not fall under the Government instructions, which stipulates the grant of regular pay scale to the employees, who have put in service of more than five years continuous service. The petitioners, admittedly were not in continuous service for more than five years to be covered under the Government instructions. The interpretation given by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the Government instructions, therefore, cannot be accepted. 13. The object of the Govt. instructions is that a person who has been working continuously for more than five years is deemed to be worked against a regular vacancy therefore, entitled to be regularised. The very fact that the petitioners worked only for a few days in a month shows that there was no regular vacancy against which their services could be regularised. 14. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the legality of the Govt. instructions for regularisation of a person appointed without considering the case of the eligible persons itself is doubtful and therefore, do not give any right for regularisation. 15.Consequently, finding no merit in these writ petitions, are ordered to be dismissed.