Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 721 (MAD)

R. Palanisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-01-31

J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings Order No.S.4(1)/30584/2021 dated 03.03.2023 and further directing the respondents to grant a minimum time scale of pay of Rs.18,500/- per mensum applying equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and as had been granted and extended in favour of similarly placed persons as per G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were all appointed as Daily Rated Casual Labourers between 2008 and 2019 and the service particulars of the respective petitioners are annexed to the typed set of papers. They are all rendering services under Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) and have continued as such as on date. 3. The Government by a Policy Decision came up with a proposal that in view of their continuous, uninterrupted services which is required in the Irrigation Management under the Water Resources Organization (WRO), issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019, arriving at a total of about 3407 such daily rated casual labourers who are working on a temporary basis to be granted and extended with basic pay at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post of sweeper/scavenger with Dearness Allowance thereupon applicable from time to time directed that instead of bringing them under regular time scale of pay or for permanent absorption. 4. While being so, a Screening Committee was also constituted for the purpose of verification of these types of NMRs. The Screening Committee which was directed to identify the eligible casual labourers arrived at 3407 NMRs. 5. In an earlier round of litigation, as many as 20 persons approached the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD)No.8092 of 2020 to permit the petitioners to continue as NMRs' till their permanent absorption among other prayers. This Court after making certain observations dispose of the writ petition by giving few directions: 56. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the factual matrix of this case, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders in this writ petition: (1) That out of the 20 petitioners, except Petitioner Nos.2, 15 and 19, others are not entitled to seek for any relief, as they have claimed in this writ petition. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the factual matrix of this case, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders in this writ petition: (1) That out of the 20 petitioners, except Petitioner Nos.2, 15 and 19, others are not entitled to seek for any relief, as they have claimed in this writ petition. Therefore, insofar as the other 17 petitioners, the prayer sought for by the petitioners is rejected. (2) In respect of the petitioner Nos.2, 15 and 19, based on the certificate issued by the very PWD Executive Engineers concerned certifying that, they have been engaged directly as NMR employees for more than five years and ten years respectively, their candidature can be considered by the respondents PWD for the continuous engagement. (3) In future, as has been declared in the G.O.137 Public Works Department dated 13.09.2019, no NMR employees shall be engaged in the Public Works Department, except at the campus, sites indicated in Item No. (i) of Paragraph 6 of G.O.137. However, for any emergency or contingency, if the Government decides to engage any new NMR employees only for the specific purpose or for a limited period, even such engagement shall be strictly made only from among the candidates, whose names are sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange and at no circumstances, direct engagement shall be made by way of pick and choose method by the PWD officials. (4) The Government shall come forward to issue necessary Government orders prescribing the age, educational qualifications and physical fitness for the purpose of engagement and method of engagement of NMR employees in future. (5) In this context, the G.O., may indicate or prescribe the educational qualifications of only or the maximum of up to Higher Secondary, ie., +2 and as far as possible, such engagement shall only be made from among the candidates, who have the educational qualification only upto +2 and the highly qualified people, who are having professional degrees and other equal under graduate and post graduate degrees shall be avoided. 6. Thereafter the petitioners filed W.P.No.12298 of 2021 and pursuant to the directions issued therein, the 2 nd respondent had chosen to reject the claim of the petitioners towards the grant of minimum consolidated pay of Rs.18,500/- per mensum in and by order of the 2 nd respondent made in Proceedings order No.S.4(1)30584/2021 dated 03.03.2023. 6. Thereafter the petitioners filed W.P.No.12298 of 2021 and pursuant to the directions issued therein, the 2 nd respondent had chosen to reject the claim of the petitioners towards the grant of minimum consolidated pay of Rs.18,500/- per mensum in and by order of the 2 nd respondent made in Proceedings order No.S.4(1)30584/2021 dated 03.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2 nd respondent has passed the impugned order on an erroneous view by reading the Government Order, which had directed granting of Rs.18,500/- as minimum pay and on a total misconception that the same would be applicable and to be extended only for those 3407 daily rated employees. The impugned order at this distance of time when the petitioners have been admittedly discharging duties for the past more than a decade and the policy of the Government in bringing them into regular establishment is unworkable due to various dictum of law since their entry has been termed as a backdoor, therefore by applying the doctrine of necessity and that of the indispensability of these casual labourers, had chosen to continue them without regularization; however as a solace regarding the escalated cost price index, directed a minimum pay of Rs.18,500/- per mensum, though the Constitutional protection under Article 39-D would inure to the benefit of the petitioners towards equal pay for equal work, the minimum pay as prescribed for other casual labourers ought to have been extended to the petitioners also. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the reasoning in the impugned order that the petitioners were not before the Screening Committee can be of no avail to the respondents because it was incumbent upon them to include and place the petitioners before the screening committee for appropriate consideration, instead it had chosen to confine to very many selective casual labourers of its choice and left out the others which includes the petitioners herein under the guise of non-availability of records. 9. 9. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent before passing the impugned order failed to take note of the fact that the authority themselves viz., the recommending and proposing authority have admitted that certain exigency in sending their names much less, administrative delay in the office had taken place and therefore, their names could not be placed before the Screening Committee, despite such a statement and submissions which has been reduced into writing, the impugned order denying the benefit of minimum pay of Rs.18,500/- on the premises that their names did not figure in either of the government orders exhibits patent arbitrariness coupled with discrimination much less hostile discrimination squarely infracting Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . 10. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee ought to have verified the eligibility in its totality about the NMRs/Casual labourers on the whole of Public Works Department and not confined it to 3407 workers/employees when every Division, Sub-Division and other allied work under the Public Works Department in the entire Tamil Nadu is at least minimum of 10 persons and the quantification so arrived is without any basis. 11. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents dated 08.02.2024. 12. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 08.11.2022 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 21.01.2021 and the same was rejected by the impugned order vide order No.S.4(1)/30584/2021 dated 03.03.2023. He further submitted that the Petitioners' claim were rejected on the ground that they have not produced any documents to prove that they were working from the date mentioned in their service particulars. 13. Learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that if the petitioners had records to prove the same, then they should have proved it to the Screening Committee. More the respondents had not prevented the Petitioners from going to the Screening Committee, since the Petitioners had no valid documents to prove their case, the committee did not include the Petitioners' name in 3407 NMR list. 14. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioners were working as Daily Rated Casual Labourers between 2008 and 2019 and have been rendering services under Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) and have continued as such as on date. 14. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 15. In the case on hand, the petitioners were working as Daily Rated Casual Labourers between 2008 and 2019 and have been rendering services under Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) and have continued as such as on date. The G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019 wherein the orders of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P. (MD).No. 24081 of 2018 dated 31.01.2019 and based on the report of the Screening Committee payment of wages to 3407 Nominal Muster Rolls/Daily rated Casual Labourers was fixed on consolidated basis at Rs.18,500/- per month. According to the petitioners, similarly placed persons were granted consolidated pay of Rs.18,500/- in terms of G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department, dated 06.12.2019. However, the petitioners have been omitted arbitrarily. The petitioners contend that they have been receiving only Rs.15,700/- per month each and G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department, dated 06.12.2019 has not been applied to them. In such circumstances, they have given a joint representation on 21.01.2021 to the respondents requesting them to pay them a consolidated pay of Rs.18,500/- per month each as is being done to the similarly placed persons by applying G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department, dated 06.12.2019. 16. The first contention of the first respondent is that the petitioners have not submitted any documents to prove that they were working as daily rated casual labourers. Whereas in the impugned order the respondents themselves have mentioned the period wherein the petitioners were working as Daily Rated Causal Labourers and the same is extracted hereunder: Hence the above contention of the respondents is unsustainable in view of the above facts mentioned in the impugned order. 17. The second contention of the respondents is that the petitioners have not submitted any documents before the Screening Committee to prove that they were working as Daily Rated Casual Labourers. In this regard, in the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that there was a delay in verifying the documents, and it is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the order: 18. When the respondents have themselves admitted that there is a delay in verifying the documents in regard to the petitioners who were working as Daily Rated Casual Labourers and it is for this reason the names of the petitioners were not sent to the Screening Committee for due consideration. When the respondents have themselves admitted that there is a delay in verifying the documents in regard to the petitioners who were working as Daily Rated Casual Labourers and it is for this reason the names of the petitioners were not sent to the Screening Committee for due consideration. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled for minimum time scale of pay. The documents are all available within the respondents which is clear and evident from the impugned order hence the question of submitting the documents by the petitioner does not arise. If there is no delay in submitting the particulars the Screening Committee would have considered the case of the petitioners and would have extended the benefits of the minimum time scale of pay. 19. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners the second respondent passed the impugned order in a total misconception that the G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 06.12.2019 of the Public Works Department would be applicable and to be extended only for those 3407 daily rated employees. If the names of the petitioners were sent to the Screening Committee on time then the names of the petitioners would have been considered by the Screening Committee and subsequently included in G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 06.12.2019 of the Public Works Department and the number of daily rated employees would have been more than the 3407. 20. The petitioners are the similarly persons to that of the above 3407 daily rated employees and it has to be extended to them also and depriving of the same will be against the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . 21. If the respondents were not able to forward or submit the names of the petitioners herein due to the administrative delay i.e., verification of documents, then in such case they must have requested the Screening Committee to extend the time for submitting the particulars of the similarly placed persons which they failed to do so for which the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer for no fault on theirs. 22. 22. It is crystal clear and evident that the respondents wanted to propose and forward the names of the petitioners to the Screening Committee since their own record shows that they all worked during the period from 2008 to 2019 and some for more than ten years and they are entitled for the minimum pay scale as per G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019, which is also evident through the impugned order that due to delay in verification of documents/recitals the names of the petitioners could not be forwarded to the Screening Committee. 23. No doubt it is the duty cast upon the respondents to submit the documentary proof of the petitioners to the Screening Committee and not the petitioners that is the reason the respondents are saying that there is an administrative delay in submitting the same in the impugned order. Hence the other contention of the respondents that the petitioners should prove the case with the documents before the Screening Committee is also unsustainable and untenable in law. 24. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent vide order No.S.4(1)/30584/2021 dated 03.03.2023 is liable to be quashed accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the minimum scale of pay with Dearness Allowance applicable from time to time to the petitioners as had been granted and extended in favour of the similarly placed persons as per G.O.Ms.No.233, Public Works Department dated 06.12.2019 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with the above observations and direction. No costs.