IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2010
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
W.P.Nos. 44050,44052 to 44055 of 2006
1 K. BALAIYAH
SKILLED MAZDOOR,
PANCHAYAT UNION CENTRAL PHARMACY, Petitioner in
THANJAVUR. W.P.No.44050/2006
2. P. NAGARAJAN
SKILLED MAZDOOR,
PANCHAYAT UNION CENTRAL
PHARMACY THANAJVUR. Petitioner in
W.P.No.44052/2006
3. A. VENKATAHALAM
SKILLED MAZDOOR,
PANAHCYAT UNION CENTRAL PETITIONER in
PHARMACY THANJAVUR. W.P.No.44053/2006
4. S. ANBUMANI
SKILLED MAZDOOR,
PANAHCYAT UNION CENTRAL PETITIONER in
PHARMACY THANJAVUR. W.P.No.44054/2006
5. M. GURUMURTHY
SKLLED MAZDOOR,
PANCHAYAT UNION CENTRAL PETITIONER in
PHARMACY THANJAVUR. W.P.No.44055/2006
Vs
1 THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT UNION,
THANAJVUR. RESPONDENT in
all Writ petitions.
Prayer
Original Application Nos.428, 430, 431,432 and 433 of 2000 respectively, were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to issue a direction to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was re-transferred and numbered as Writ petition.
For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
For Respondents .. Mr. C. Kalaiselvan
ORDER
Original Application Nos.428, 430, 431,432 and 433 of 2000 respectively, were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to issue a direction to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was re-transferred and numbered as Writ petition.
2. Petitioners were appointed as Skilled Mazdoor in the Panchayat Union Central pharmacy in Thanjavur, under the Control of the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Thanjavur. Petitioner A.Venkatachalam was appointed on 30.09.1981, S. Anthony was appointed on 16.10.1983, M. Gurumurthy was appointed on 10.04.1984, K. Balaiyah was appointed on 31.10.1989 and P. Nagarajan was appointed on 12.03.1996. It is not in dispute that the Central Pharmacy had incurred loss resulting in closure. It appears notice was issued to all the petitioners stating that their service will be terminated for the above said reason. At that point of time, they filed original application in the year 2000 for regularisation of their service. In view of the termination order, interim order was passed by the Tribunal not to oust petitioners from service. As on today, it is not clear whether the Central Pharmacy had been disbanded or closed. The respondent filed a reply wherein they have stated that the Central Pharmacy is still running. Be that as it may, the controversy in the present cases is as follows:-
All the 5 petitioners seek regularisation stating that as on today, they have put in more than 10 years of service. They have made a representation to the District Collector in this regard. The Government, as a model employer, should regularise the service of such employees who have served long years with the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon G.O.Ms.No. 22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No. 125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27.05.1999 and state that in view of the long period of service rendered by the petitioners, their claim for regularisation should be considered. The relevant portion of the aforesaid G.O. Ms.No.22 reads as follows:-
“The Hon’ble Chief Minister had announced during the Tamil Nadu Government officials Union and Government Servants and Teachers Associations General Conference held on 08.02.2006, that the services of employees working in various Government Departments on daily wages, those who have completed more than 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 will be regularised.
2. Based on the announcement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 08.02.2006, the Government direct that the services of the daily wages employees working in all Government Departments who have rendered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularised by appointing them in the time scale of pay of the post in accordance with the service conditions prescribed for the post concerned, subject to their being otherwise qualified for the post.
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 01.01.2006 as ordered in para 2 above, in consultation with the respective. Heads of Departments wherever necessary. In special cases wherein relaxation of rules is required, proposal shall be sent to Government.
4. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U.O.No.985/FS/P/2006 Dated 28.02.2006.”
3. In terms of the above said G.O direction were issued to all the Government Departments for regularisation of service of daily wagers who have rendered more than 10 years of services. It is not disputed that at the time of initial appointment, the respondent found that the petitioners are qualified for appointment in service. Such being the case, the petitioners are entitled to seek regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 22 dated 28.02.2008. Further, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 125 Municipal Administration Water Supply Department dated 27.05.1999, in respect of appointment made after 1.10.96, Government has directed that they should be absorbed into time scale of pay.
4. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed long before in the year 1989, 1991 and 1993. Some of the petitioners are experienced. The respondent has filed a reply stating that the appointment of the petitioners were purely temporary and no rules were framed for regularising their services.
5. This stand of the respondent cannot be countenanced in the light of two G.O. referred to above. More over, the Court had considered the claim of the persons who were employed for a long number of years as casual labourers and have directed to the Government to regularise their service with consequential benefits. One of such judgement relied upon by the petitioner is reported in 2009 2 MLJ 676 (V. Lingam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, through the Secretary, Education Department, Chennai and others). In the present case petitioners were employed as skilled Mazdoor during the year 1981, 1983, 1984, 1989 and 1996 and that they have put in more than 10 years as on today. It is also not in dispute that they have served in respondents’ department satisfactorily as the respondent employed them initially on the ground that they are qualified for the said post. The Government has redressed the grievance of the similarly placed persons by passing several Government Orders from time to time of which two of them have been already referred to above. In such view of the matter, the Director of Commissioner of Panchayat Union, shall consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation and forwarded the same to the competent authority as well as to the Government for appropriate relief. Keeping in view and G.o.Ms.No. 22 dated 28.02.2008, the case of the petitioners will be considered sympathically and also on the merits.
6. The petitioners are entitled to make further representation to the respondent as well as to the Director of Rural Development for redressal of the in grievance. On such representation being made the competent authority shall consider and dispose the same of on merits within a period of 3 months from the date of such representation.
7. Till such time the representation is disposed of, the petitioner’s position as Skilled Mazdoor shall not be disturbed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No cost.
sms
To
THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT UNION,
THANAJVUR