IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.09.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.991 of 2007 (T) (O.A.No.5310 of 2000) S.Jagadeswari ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Inspector of General Prisons, No.807, II Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Special Prison for Women, Vellore. 3.The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Thirupathur, Vellore District. 4.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 8. ... Respondents (R4 is suo motto impleaded on 28.09.2010) PRAYER: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of Original Application in O.A.No.5310 of 2000 to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the applicant. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balakrishnan Additional Government Pleader. O R D E R
The petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 as Female Escort Warder on temporary basis by the 2nd respondent, being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5310 of 2000 (W.P.No.991 of 2007) praying for regularisation of her services.
2. The respondents filed reply affidavit. It is stated therein that the Female Escort Warder on daily wages were appointed on temporary basis and they were paid wages at the rate of Rs.15/- per day as per G.O.No.1921, Home Department, dated 22.08.1990 and subsequently they were paid Rs.40/- per day as per G.O.Ms.No.184, Home Department, dated 06.02.1997 and thereafter they were paid Rs.60/- per day, as per G.O.Rt.No.931, Home (Pr.II) Department, dated 02.07.1999. It is further stated that proposals for regularising the services of Female Escort Warder, working in Jail department were sent to the Government. But the Government deferred the same without passing any order.
3. Heard Mr.K.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitts that the services of persons who were appointed along with the petitioner as temporary Female Escort Warders were regularised and he also relies on a decision of this Court dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.No.11909 of 2006 in R.Gnanasundari and 8 Ors. Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another, wherein this Court directed the Government to regularise the services of the temporary Female Escort Warders as Grade-II Female Warders by relaxing the age qualification under Rule 48 of the General Rules.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that proposals were sent to Government for relaxation and the Government did not pass orders and the matter was deferred.
6. I have considered the submissions made on either side.
7. The petitioner was appointed as temporary Female Escort Warder in 1999. She has sought for regularisation of her services as Grade-II Female Warders. The case of the respondent is not that the petitioner is not entitled for relaxation. On the other hand, the respondents pleaded that proposals were sent seeking regularisation of the services of temporary Female Escort Warders like the petitioner and the Government did not pass orders. The following passage in para ‘3’ of the Reply Affidavit filed by the respondent is extracted hereunder.
“3. The applicant was appointed as Female Escort Warder on daily wages, purely on temporary basis by the Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore and working as such duly selecting from Employment Exchange. The services of the Escort Warders are utilised only when female prisoners are lodged in the Sub Jails. They are being paid wages at Rs.15/- per day as per G.O.No.1921, Home Department, dated 22.08.1990 and Rs.40/- as per G.O.Ms.No.184, Home Department, dated 06.02.1997 and Rs.60/- as per G.O.Rt.No.931, Home (Pr.II) Department, dated 02.07.1999. They will be paid wages only for the actual number of days they works. Hence their services cannot be equated with those of regular female warders. Proposal for regularising the services of the Female Escort Warder, working in this Department, sent to Government was examined in depth and deferred by the Government for better times. As per order of the Government action is being taken to fill up the vacant posts of this department by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. Now the applicant has filed O.A.No.5310/2000 in the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal to regularise her services.”
The same is repeated at so many places in the Reply Affidavit filed by the respondent. The effect of the Reply affidavit is that they pleaded inability in regularising the services of the petitioner and they took all the steps for regularisation by sending proposals.
8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.No.11909 of 2006, in a totally similar matter. The temporary Female Escort Warders like the petitioner who joined the services between 1998 and 2000 filed O.A.No.5305 of 2000 before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, claiming regularisation. The same was disposed by the Tribunal on 30.08.2002, directing the Government to frame a scheme and to absorb as many as temporary Female Escort Warders as possible into regular service. Thereafter, the petitioners therein filed W.P.No.34262 of 2004 to implement the order of Tribunal.
9. In these circumstances, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.710, Home Department, dated 17.08.2005, ordering for special selection to the post of Grade-II Women Warder in Jail Department from temporary Female Escort Warders. In the said Government order, the Government has provided relaxation of Educational qualifications, physical standards in efficiency test etc. and the age was relaxed to 35 years in respect of general category candidates as against 18 to 24 years as per Rules and 40 years for SC/ST candidates as against 29 years as per Rules and also the height restriction and physical efficiency / endurance test was also reduced.
10. However, the petitioners were aggrieved as they were over aged and the regularisation given in Government Order could not help them for regularisation. They relied on various orders passed by this Court as well as by the Government, granting relaxation of age and educational qualifications in the matter of regularisation. Ultimately, this Court disposed the writ petition directing the Government to regularise the services of the petitioner by granting age relaxation as on 17.08.2005, by passing appropriate orders under Rule 48 of the General Rules with effect from the date of the filing of the Original Application and granted the benefits notionally from the date of regularisation. The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The penultimate para in the order dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.No.11909 of 2006 is as follows.
“17. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners by granting relaxation of the age qualification stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.710 dated 17.8.2005 by passing appropriate orders under Rule 48 of the General Rules with effect from the date of filing of the Original Application and grant the benefits notionally from the date of regularisation. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
11. Taking into account the reply affidavit of the respondents 1 to 3, that they have sent proposals for regularising the services of the petitioner including other temporary Female Escort Warder and also the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.No.11909 of 2006, a direction is issued to the 4th respondent, the Government to regularise the services of the petitioner in terms of the orders of this Court dated 21.07.2010 in W.P.No.11909 of 2006, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
ars
To
1. The Inspector of General Prisons,
No.807, II Floor, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Special Prison for Women,
Vellore.
3. The Superintendent,
Sub-Jail,
Thirupathur, Vellore District.
4. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 8