Madras High Court
S.Thangavelu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 7 February, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P(MD)No 9296 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
S.Thangavelu ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Principal Secretary and
Secretary to Government
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Sub Collector,
Cheranmadevi,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.19 Revenue (E-8(2)) Department dated
11.01.2012 and quash the same in so far relates to regularizing the service
of the petitioner in the cadre of the Night Watchman from the date of
issuance of the Government Order viz., 11.01.2012 and further direct the
first respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of
his initial appointment viz., 10.09.1992 with all consequential arrears of
pay, fixation of pay, seniority etc.
!For Petitioner :Mr.G.Sridharan
^For Respondents :Mrs.V.P.M.Vaishnavi,
Government Advocate
:ORDER
The order of rejection, dated 11.01.2012 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to regularize the services from the date of his initial appointment on 10.09.1992 as daily wages Night Watchman, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Night Watchman on daily wage basis with effect from 10.09.1992. The writ petitioner was continuously working as daily wage employee. However, the Government has taken a decision to regularize the services of the daily wages employees, who have completed 10 years of service. Pursuant to the decision, a proposal was submitted and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.19 Revenue (E8(2) Department, dated 11.01.2012. Accordingly, the services of the writ petitioner was regularized with effect from the date of the government Order. Now, the writ petitioner is working as a permanent employee in the regular time scale of pay. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the benefit of the regularization is granted to the writ petitioner, the same ought to have been extended from the date of initial appointment, contrarily, the benefit of regularization was granted only with effect of the date of the Government Order.
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the said contentions by stating that the retrospective regularization would cause great financial stress to the State. In the event of granting regularisation with effect from the date of initial appointment, the revision of scale of pay and arrears to be paid to the writ petitioner and the State will face lot of financial stress. This apart, the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the recruitment Rules in force. Then the writ petitioner cannot seek any retrospective regularisation of his appointment with all other benefits.
4.Considering the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is of an opinion that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the recruitment Rules in force. It was an irregular appointment, though not illegal. However, considering the length of the service rendered by the writ petitioner, the Government has granted benefit of regularisation in G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 11.01.2012. On a perusal of the Government Order, the Rule relating to the reservation, minimum age limit were relaxed in favour of the writ petitioner. The benefit of regularisation was extended by the Government by invoking the Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Government Subordinate Service Rules. Granting regularisation by relaxing the relevant service Rules is a concession shown by the Government in favour of the writ petitioner. The benefit of the regularisation granted itself was a concession. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot seek any retrospective regularisation with effect from his initial date of appointment on 10.09.1992. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and his services were regularised by relaxing the recruitment Rules in force. Thus, the writ petitioner cannot claim any retrospective regularisation.
5. This apart, the submission of the Government Advocate that in the event of granting retrospective regularisation, the Government has to face a huge financial stress, is also to be considered by this Court.
6. The writ petitioner was employed as Daily wages and during the relevant point of time, he drawn the wages as applicable. Thus, there is no question of extending the further benefits of retrospective regularisation.
7.Further, the amended Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules provides half of the temporary service rendered by the employee shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service at the time of settling the pensionary benefits. The amended Rule 11 of the Pension Rules stipulates, the temporary service shall be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the qualified service. In this regard, the writ petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the appropriate authority for taking into account the 50% of the Temporary Service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In the event of receiving any such representation from the writ petitioner, it is for the appropriate authority to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and take a decision. In respect of relief of retrospective regularisation, this Court is of an opinion that the regularisation granted to the writ petitioner itself was a concession and therefore, no further consideration is required in this writ petition.
8.With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Principal Secretary and Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
4.The Sub Collector, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli District.
.