Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2589 (MAD)

Sarojini v. Executive Officer, Coimbatore

2022-08-08

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to regularize the services of the Petitioner's husband namely C.Jeyaraj from the date on which he completed three years consolidated pay service and consequently to pay all eligible monetary pay arrears and benefits arising out of such retrospective regularization, to the Petitioner within the stipulated time limit.) 1. Heard Mr. P.I.Thirumoorthy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. Though the Respondent had entered appearance through Counsel whose name has been printed in the cause-list, there is no representation on his behalf when the matter is called today. 3. The husband of the Petitioner, viz., C.Jeyaraj, had been engaged as Sweeper by the Respondent from 29.01.1999 on consolidated pay. According to the Petitioner, the said C.Jeyaraj was entitled to be regularized in service on completion of three years of service from his date of appointment as per G.O. Ms. No. 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.08.1997, but such benefit was not extended to him. Though he was regularized in service with effect from 23.06.2006 by order in Na. Ka. No. 264/2006 dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Respondent and brought on regular time scale of pay in terms of G.O. (Ms). No. 60, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 23.06.2006, the said C.Jeyaraj had made representation for granting him regularization of service on completion of three years from the date on which he had actually joined service and he subsequently died on 20.11.2012. No. 60, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 23.06.2006, the said C.Jeyaraj had made representation for granting him regularization of service on completion of three years from the date on which he had actually joined service and he subsequently died on 20.11.2012. It is the case of the Petitioner that in respect of similarly placed persons to the said C.Jeyaraj, who had been engaged in Town Panchayats, the Division Bench of the Court in Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai -vs- M.Rani (Order dated 30.06.2015 in W.A. No. 1289 of 2014) has held that such employees are entitled to grant of time scale on regular basis on the basis of performance assessment to be done on completion of three years and in the event, it is found satisfactory, they are entitled to regularization on completion of three years with all consequential monetary benefits, and that the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O. (Ms) No. 142, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department dated 23.09.2015 had implemented the same in which it has been provided as follows:- “9. The Government have examined the proposal of the Director of Town Panchayats in the light of the orders of the High Court or Madras in the batch cases of Writ Appeals and decided to accept the proposal of the Director of Town Panchayats to permit the Executive Officers of Town Panchayats concerned to regularize the services of the 2923 employees working in sanitation, water supply and street light maintenance in Town Panchayats who were already brought into the time scale of pay as per the G.O. 5th read above with effect from 23.06.2006 excluding the employees who were already brought into time scale of pay from the date on which they have completed 3 years of service on consolidated pay due to Court orders, from the date on which they have completed 3 years of service on consolidated pay and for claiming the arrears of pay from the General Fund of the Town Panchayats concerned subject to the condition that the salary and establishment cost including this expenditure should not exceed 40% of the total revenue of the concerned Town Panchayats and order accordingly.” The Petitioner made a representation dated 27.05.2016 claiming the said benefits, but as it has not been granted, the Writ Petition has been filed. 4. 4. In this context, reference must also be made to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Arvind Kumar Srivastava [ (2015) 1 SCC 347 ], where it has been held as follows:- "22.1. Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence." Having regard to the aforesaid legal position, the obligation is cast upon the concerned authorities to have on their own accord extended the benefit to all similarly placed persons, if they are eligible for the same. 5. 5. In such circumstances, the following order is passed:- (i) the concerned authority shall immediately consider the representation dated 27.05.2016 made by the Petitioner in terms of G.O. (Ms) No. 142, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department dated 23.09.2015 including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled for the benefits claimed; (ii) if it is found that any details or supporting documents satisfying the eligibility criteria for the benefits claimed has not been produced, the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 15 clear working days in that regard; (iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements thereafter, an enquiry shall be conducted affording opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner to explain him position in that regard; (iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated to the Petitioner by 31.10.2022 under written acknowledgment; (v) if the Petitioner is found entitled to the claim made, the eligible amount of arrears of differentiated amount of pay along with working-sheet showing its calculation, shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of passing of such order; and (vi) the report of completion of the aforesaid exercise shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No costs.