BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/11/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Appeal (MD) No.398 of 2010 1.The Secretary to Government, Highways Department, Fort St., George, Chennai - 9. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Trichirappalli. 3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Investigation Division, Trichy. 4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Investigation Sub-Division Office, II Street, Mannarpuram, Trichy - 620 020. . . Appellants Vs. V.Pandian . . Respondent Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order, dated 23.12.2008 made in W.P.No.6220 of 2008. !For Appellants ... Mr.K.Balasubramanian, AGP ^For respondent ... Mr.Thalaimutharasu :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J)
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge directing to extend the
benefit of G.O.Ms.No.528, (P&A.R.) Department, dated 10.10.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.22
(P & A.R.) Department, dated 28.02.206 to the respondent herein to regularise
his service, the State has preferred the present writ appeal.
2. The respondent herein was appointed as part time Sweeper through
employment exchange on 20.08.1992 by the 3rd respondent. From the date of his
appointment in the month of August, 1992, the respondent has been continuously
working in the said post without any break in service for the last 16 years. In
the meanwhile, in view of G.O.MS.No.191, (Finance) Department, dated 29.04.98,
his pay was also revised with effect from 01.01.96. As he was continuously
working, he made a representation with a request for regularisation of his
service and as there was no reply again, finally, he made an another
representation dated 29.08.2005, but, the petitioners herein have not come
forward to pass any orders on his representation. Therefore, respondent herein
was constrained to file the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.6220 of
2008.
3. Before the learned Single Judge, his contention was that he was
entitled to be regularised in view of the order passed by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.528, (P&A.R.) Department, dated 10.10.1988 and further clarification
dated 25.01.1989, for the reason that he was appointed against the permanent
vacancy through employment exchange and also has completed more than 16 years of
service from the date of his appointment on 20.08.1992.
4. In his further submission before the learned Single Judge, he has
relied upon the judgment of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others
(2006 4 SCC 1), wherein the Apex Court has held that If employees are allowed to
continue for more than 10 years, but without the intervention of orders of the
Courts or of Tribunals, particularly, if any qualified persons are allowed to
continue in the sanctioned post, the regularisation of service of such
employees, may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of S.V.Narayanappa, R.N.Nanjundappa and
B.N.Nagarajan, as referred in the paragraph 15 of the said judgment. In that
context, the Apex Court has held that the Union of India, the State Government
and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time
measure, the service of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts, but not under cover of orders of the
courts or of tribunals.
5. The learned Single Judge, by answering contention raised by the
appellant, held that G.O.Ms.No.528, (P&A.R.) Department, dated 10.10.1988 and
G.O.Ms.No.22 (P & A.R.) Department, dated 28.02.206, are applicable even in
respect of part time temporary employees on the basis of the order passed by
this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.827 and 2231 of 2008.
6. Admittedly, when the judgment in Umadevi’s case was passed, the
respondent herein has completed 10 years of service in the year 2006. As of
today, admittedly, he has completed 18 years of service. Therefore, the
observation made by the Apex Court in Umadevi’s case is squarely applicable to
the case of the respondent herein.
7. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, we do no find any merit in the
writ appeal and the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, all the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
rkm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Highways Department,
Fort St., George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Highways Department,
Trichirappalli.
3.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Investigation Division,
Trichy.
4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Investigation Sub-Division Office,
II Street, Mannarpuram,
Trichy – 620 020.