Madras High Court
E.Kemburaji vs State Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 January, 2018
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.Nos.2739 to 2753, 2856 to 2870, 2920 to 2934 of 2017
E.Kemburaji .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2739 of 2017
E.Dharuman .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2740 of 2017
S.Siddique Farook .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2741 of 2017
M.Purushothaman .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2742 of 2017
K.Alagesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2743 of 2017
E.Anbazhagan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2744 of 2017
G.Balaji .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2745 of 2017
C.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2746 of 2017
U.Balu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2747 of 2017
M.Boopalan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2748 of 2017
S.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2749 of 2017
R.Devadoss .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2750 of 2017
E.Damodharan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2751 of 2017
V.Dhayalan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2752 of 2017
E.Dhinakara Pandian .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2753 of 2017
A.Gajendran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2856 of 2017
G.Ganesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2857 of 2017
K.Jeevarathinam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2858 of 2017
S.Jothi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2859 of 2017
R.Kanagarajan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2860 of 2017
S.Kumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2861 of 2017
C.Loganathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2862 of 2017
R.Loganathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2863 of 2017
P.Logu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2864 of 2017
C.Mani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2865 of 2017
S.Murugan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2866 of 2017
B.Neelakandan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2867 of 2017
K.Palanivel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2868 of 2017
K.Paramasivan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2869 of 2017
S.Parthiban .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2870 of 2017
P.Rajakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2920 of 2017
R.Ramu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2921 of 2017
P.Saravanakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2922 of 2017
A.Saravanan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2923 of 2017
M.Sankar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2924 of 2017
M.Selvam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2925 of 2017
T.Soundararajan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2926 of 2017
R.Sudhakar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2927 of 2017
C.Suresh .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2928 of 2017
M.Vadivel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2929 of 2017
E.Velayutham .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2930 of 2017
C.Vedhagiri .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2931 of 2017
K.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2932 of 2017
M.Seenuvasan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2933 of 2017
K.Soodamani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2934 of 2017
-vs-
1. State Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Principal Secretary
Public Works Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2. The Engineer-in-Chief
Chief Engineer (General)
Water Resources Organisation Department
Public Works Department
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3. The Engineer-in-Chief
Chief Engineer (General)
Water Resources Organisation Department
Public Works Department
Tharamani
Chennai 600 113
4. The Executive Engineer
Chennai Division, Ground Water
Water Resources Organisation Department
Public Works Department
Tharamani
Chennai 600 113
5. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Ground Water, Sub Division No.IV
Public Works Department
Tharamani
Chennai 600 113
6. The Chief Engineer ESG-GSO
Department of Atomic Energy
Kalpakkam
Kanchipuram District
(R6 impleaded as per order dated
3.3.2017 in WMP Nos.4137 to 4181
of 2017 in WP Nos.2739 to
2751, 2856 to 2870, 2920
to 2934 of 2017) .. Respondents in all the Writ Petitions
Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioners' representations dated 02.07.2016 and to regularize the services of the petitioners within a time frame.
For Petitioners :: Mr.M.Sekar
for Ms.R.K.Kalpana
For Respondents :: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to 5
No appearance for R6
ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed seeking a common relief for issuance of a mandamus to the State Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, the first respondent herein to pass orders on the representations of the petitioners dated 2.7.2016, wherein they have prayed for regularization of their service within a specified time limit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the Government of Tamil Nadu had come forward with the project through the Water Resources Organization Department to supply 3.5 million gallons of water to Kalpakkam Atomic Energy Water Plant for the production, research and all other related activities, an agreement was reached with regard to the utilisation of water from the Palar river between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Indian Atomic Energy Corporation purely for the development of our country. Subsequently, the Government of Tamil Nadu also increased the supply of water to 6.5 million gallons for utilization by the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research and Madras Atomic Power Station with effect from 1.7.2003, in response to their request for research purpose, production and for other purposes. Since the supply of 6.5 million gallons of water is required to increase the atomic energy power production, which is required for the development of our country, on the basis of the aforesaid scheme, the people from various villages, namely, Panangattucherry, Bomma Rajapuram, Nallathur, Vayalur, Poigainallur and Thandarai, apprehending fear in view of the huge extraction of 6.5 million gallons of water, apart from protesting against the pumping of water, had demanded the District Collector of Kanchipuram to provide employment for the qualified youngsters from where the ground water is sought to be extracted. However, after negotiations, an agreement was reached. Finally the District Collector of Kanchipuram, accepting the request of the aforementioned villagers, promised to provide employment to 47 members from the aforementioned villages on contract basis to draw and pump water from the bore wells and also to distribute the water to the atomic power station. On the basis of the promise given by the District Collector, Kanchipuram, 47 members from the aforementioned villages were also given employment only on contract basis. Surprisingly, although they were to be provided permanent employment, they have been given employment on contract basis. Without objecting to the arrangement made to engage them on contract basis, all the petitioners joined the service and have been rendering their services continuously.
3. In the meanwhile, it is stated that the petitioners also made repeated representations requesting the respondents to regularize their services. Considering the purpose for which they were provided employment and also their continuous service, a proposal also has been made by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Organisation Department, Public Works Department to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Organisation Department, Public Works Department on 3.8.2015. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portions of the said proposal, which read thus:-
....,th;fs; fy;tpj; jFjpapid fUj;jpy; bfhz;L ,af;fg;gzpapy; gzpakh;j;jg;gl;lth;fs; jpl;lg;gzpfs; eilbgWk; fhyj;jpnyna. jpl;lk; brayhf;fk; xg;ge;jfhuh;fsplk;. Jiw nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljw;F ,z';f ,th;fs; gad;gLj;jg;gl;L jpl;l eph;khdj;jpYk; gapw;rp bgw;W mjd; gpwF Jiwapy; rhh;e;j gzpahsh;fspd; fPH; gzpf;fg;gl;L gapw;rp bgw;Ws;shh;fs;/ jw;nghJs;s epiyapy; midj;J gzpahsh;fSnk ,af;fk; kw;Wk; guhkhpg;g[ gzpfspd; KG El;gKk; bgw;W ghJfhg;ghf ,af;Ftjpy; njh;r;rp bgw;Ws;shh;fs;/ vdnt. jw;nghJs;s N:H;epiyapy; ,th;fspd; beLehisa rpwe;j gzpapid fUjpa[k; ,jd; K:yk; murpw;F epue;ju tUtha; fpilg;gij fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk;. ,th;fspd; K:d;W gzpahsh;fs; (jpUthsh;fs; nfh/N:lhkzp. nkh/rPdpthrd; kw;Wk; Mh;/Re;jh;uh$;) 10 Mz;Lfs; gzpg[hpe;J gzp tud;Kiwg;gLj;Jjy; bjhlh;ghd fUj;JUf;fs; kw;Wk; gzpg;gjpntLfs; fz;fhzpg;g[g;bghwpahsh;. epyePh; tl;lk; brd;id?113 foj vz;/ep2-63-2008 ehs; 09.12.2014?d; K:ykhf jiyikg;bghwpahsh; bghgJ (kh/ep/k/nk/eP/M/t/F/ikak;) brd;id?113 mth;fSf;F rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;L mth;fs; K:ykhf Kjd;ikg;bghwpahsh;. ePMJ/. kw;Wk; jiyikg;bghwpahsh;. (bghJ) bghgJ. brd;id?5 mth;fSf;F mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,g;gzpapy; 10 Mz;LfSf;F nky; xg;ge;j mog;gilapy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk; gzpahsh;fspd; gzptud;Kiw bra;tjw;fhd fUj;JU xU rpwg;g[ epfH;thf fUjp rkh;g;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ 1/ fhv{;rpg[uk; khtl;l Ml;rpah; Kd;dpiyapy; braw;bghwpahsh;. bghgJ epyePh; nfhl;lk;. brd;id?113 mth;fshy; cs;S:h; ,isv{h;fSf;F ePnuw;W gzpapy; gzp tH';fg;gLk; vd Vw;Wf;bfhz;L ,g;gzpahsh;fSf;F xg;ge;j gzp tH';fg;gl;lJ/ vdnt. murpd; tpjpfis jsh;j;jp ,jid rpwg;g[ epfH;thf fUjp ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ 2/ ,th;fs; ,g;gzpapy; rpwe;j njh;r;rp bgw;Ws;sjhy; ,th;fs; gzp muRj; Jiwf;F mj;jpahtrpakhfpwJ/ 3/ ,g;gzpf;F btspa{hpypUe;J gzpahsh;fis epakpf;f ,ayhJ/ 4/ ,th;fs; gzpf;fhd Cjpak; fzf;fplg;gl;L IGCAR-lk; ,Ue;J jpUk;g bgwg;gLtjhy; ,th;fs; gzp epue;juk; bra;tJ muRf;F TLjy; epjpr;Rik Vjk; Vw;glhJ vdt[k; braw;bghwpahsh; mth;fs; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ .....
nkYk; ,f;fUj;JUit gzpapd; jd;ik kw;Wk; mj;jpahtrpak; fUjp jdp epfH;thf fUjp ghpe;Jiuf;FkhW gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/
4. As the proposal has been already forwarded to the Engineer-in-Chief, once again the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ground Water Division, Chennai, in his letter No.E3/346/2014-1 dated 29.1.2016 also made a request to the Chief Engineer, ESG-GSO, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam to recommend the regularization of the remaining service contract personnel to the Government of Tamil Nadu specifically mentioning that the operating power plants would be shut down if the water supply is affected. In spite of the aforementioned repeated recommendations given at various levels to the Chief Engineer, ESG-GSO, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam, the Government has not come forward to consider the genuine request of the petitioners for regularization, with the result they are continuing only on contract basis. As they have rendered more than ten years of service, the first respondent, having issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006, making it clear that the services of daily wage employees shall be regularized on completion of ten years of service as on 1.1.2006, cannot prolong the matter refusing to consider the request of the petitioners for their regularization. On this basis, he prayed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners.
5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5, opposing the above prayer, submitted that when 3.5 million gallons of water has to be taken to Kalpakkam Atomic Energy Water Plant for the production, research and all other related activities, as the scheme was decided and planned only for the welfare of our country, an agreement regarding the utilisation of water from Palar river was reached between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Indian Atomic Energy Corporation as a service to the people. But the persons living around the villages, namely, Panangattucherry, Bomma Rajapuram, Nallathur, Vayalur, Poigainallur and Thandarai cannot stage any protest demanding the District Collector of Kanchipuram to provide employment for the qualified youngsters of the villages from where the ground water is being extracted to the Kalpakkam Atomic Energy Water Plant for atomic research. Moreover, the claim made by the petitioners on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006 also cannot be examined, since the Government have also issued another G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 27.6.2013, superseding G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006 with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006, introducing the following conditions:-
(i) This order shall be deemed to have been come into force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006.
(ii) The services of the full time daily wages employees who were initially appointed on full time basis in consultation with the employment exchange to discharge the function of the post of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service and completed ten years of service as on 01.01.2006 shall be regularized against regular vacancies in the sanctioned cadre strength.
(iii) In case of relaxation of service rules, the service rule relating to the education and mode of recruitment shall not be relaxed.
(iv) The part-time and casual employees are not entitled to the concession referred to at para (ii) above.
(v) The services of the full time daily wages employees who have completed ten years of service after 01.01.2006 shall not be regularized. Therefore, when the Government have already issued G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013 superseding G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that when the proposal made in respect of two other persons similarly placed like that of the petitioners for regularization was already rejected on 20.9.2014, the petitioners cannot claim the same benefit in these writ petitions.
6. But this Court finds no merit or justification whatsoever on the contentions made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. The reason is that the stand taken by the respondents 1 to 5 to oppose the prayer of the petitioners for regularization of their services is purely on the strength of the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013, which is stated to have superseded the earlier G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006 directing that the services of daily wage employees shall be regularized on completion of ten years of service as on 1.1.2006, introducing the following five conditions:-
(i) This order shall be deemed to have been come into force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2006.
(ii) The services of the full time daily wages employees who were initially appointed on full time basis in consultation with the employment exchange to discharge the function of the post of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service and completed ten years of service as on 01.01.2006 shall be regularized against regular vacancies in the sanctioned cadre strength.
(iii) In case of relaxation of service rules, the service rule relating to the education and mode of recruitment shall not be relaxed.
(iv) The part-time and casual employees are not entitled to the concession referred to at para (ii) above.
(v) The services of the full time daily wages employees who have completed ten years of service after 01.01.2006 shall not be regularized.
7. However, while considering a similar issue, this Court, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.29346 of 2014 etc., by order dated 22.9.2017 (G.Sivagiganesan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others), which is reported in MANU/TN/3071/2017, has also directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners therein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.2.2006, by quashing paragraph-6 of the G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013. In this context, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are reproduced below:-
20. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents and upon perusing the materials and pleadings placed on record, this Court is of the view that the offending portion of the G.O.Ms. No. 74, dated 27.6.2013, namely, paragraph 6 which is extracted supra, is unconstitutional and it only seeks to introduce a naked discrimination in the matter of treatment of identically placed employees. As rightly contended by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and in view of the various decisions rendered by this Court, the right which is accrued to the employees cannot stand negated by giving retrospective effect to the G.O.Ms. No. 74, dated 27.6.2013. Moreover, in the several decisions rendered by this Court which have been confirmed in Writ Appeals and also in some other cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it does not lie within the power of the Government to bring the impugned G.O. with retrospective effect. Such retrospectivity is blatant attempt by the Government to violate the principles of promissory and equitable estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation.
21. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that in several cases, in fact, few of them have cited above, the employees had obtained beneficial orders and those orders also came to be implemented by the Government on various dates even in the present year. In the said circumstances, this Court is unable to understand the situation as to how the petitioners alone can be singled out for discriminatory treatment by retrospectively applying the G.O.Ms. No. 74, dated 27.6.2013. Any Governmental action is to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A State cannot be allowed to adopt the discriminatory practice while dealing with the citizens or Government servants.
22. In the instant case, the attempt to implement the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 74, dated 27.6.2013 with retrospective effect, is nothing but a clear case of colourable exercise of power. The fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution sought to be impinged by bringing in the impugned G.O. with retrospective effect. Exercise of such power, therefore, cannot be held to be constitutionally valid. This Court is also conscious of the fact that in policy matters, the Court should be little slow in interfering with the same, however, under the guise of public policy, the Government cannot arbitrarily and unjustly take away the rights of the employees which is against the scheme of the Constitution. In the instant case, the Government has preciously done the same.
23. In the light of the above narrative and discussion, this Court finds that retrospective implementation of the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 74 dated 27.6.2013 and the other conditions enumerated in para 6 of the G.O., are liable to be struck down as being unconstitutional and interfering with the fundamental rights of the Government servants.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 74 P.&AR. Department, dated 27.6.2013 is hereby set aside insofar as para 6 is concerned and the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are entitled to regularization of their services on completion of 10 years of service by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 22 P.& AR. Department, dated 28.2.2006 and also in line with similar orders passed by this Court in various earlier writ petitions quoted supra. The respondents are directed to pass orders regularizing the services of the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observation and direction, these Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.
8. When this Court, while considering both the G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013, has already quashed paragraph-6 of the G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013, with the result G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006 has been restored, the claim of the petitioners deserves to be accepted. Hence, this Court, taking note of the following three factors, is inclined to allow the writ petitions.
8.1. Firstly, the request made by the villagers of Panangattuchery, Bomma Rajapuram, Nallathur, Vayalur, Poigainallur and Thandarai to the District Collector of Kanchipuram to provide employment for the qualified youngsters of the aforementioned villages having been accepted, based on which when 47 members of the aforementioned villages were given employment on contract basis, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of regularisation, since the petitioners have been in employment continuously for more than ten years.
8.2. Secondly, two of the proceedings issued by the authorities, namely, one by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Organisation Department, Public Works Department to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Organisation Department, Public Works Department dated 3.8.2015, which is given as under, ....,th;fs; fy;tpj; jFjpapid fUj;jpy; bfhz;L ,af;fg;gzpapy; gzpakh;j;jg;gl;lth;fs; jpl;lg;gzpfs; eilbgWk; fhyj;jpnyna. jpl;lk; brayhf;fk; xg;ge;jfhuh;fsplk;. Jiw nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljw;F ,z';f ,th;fs; gad;gLj;jg;gl;L jpl;l eph;khdj;jpYk; gapw;rp bgw;W mjd; gpwF Jiwapy; rhh;e;j gzpahsh;fspd; fPH; gzpf;fg;gl;L gapw;rp bgw;Ws;shh;fs;/ jw;nghJs;s epiyapy; midj;J gzpahsh;fSnk ,af;fk; kw;Wk; guhkhpg;g[ gzpfspd; KG El;gKk; bgw;W ghJfhg;ghf ,af;Ftjpy; njh;r;rp bgw;Ws;shh;fs;/ vdnt. jw;nghJs;s N:H;epiyapy; ,th;fspd; beLehisa rpwe;j gzpapid fUjpa[k; ,jd; K:yk; murpw;F epue;ju tUtha; fpilg;gij fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk;. ,th;fspd; K:d;W gzpahsh;fs; (jpUthsh;fs; nfh/N:lhkzp. nkh/rPdpthrd; kw;Wk; Mh;/Re;jh;uh$;) 10 Mz;Lfs; gzpg[hpe;J gzp tud;Kiwg;gLj;Jjy; bjhlh;ghd fUj;JUf;fs; kw;Wk; gzpg;gjpntLfs; fz;fhzpg;g[g;bghwpahsh;. epyePh; tl;lk; brd;id?113 foj vz;/ep2-63-2008 ehs; 09.12.2014?d; K:ykhf jiyikg;bghwpahsh; bghgJ (kh/ep/k/nk/eP/M/t/F/ikak;) brd;id?113 mth;fSf;F rkh;g;gpf;fg;gl;L mth;fs; K:ykhf Kjd;ikg;bghwpahsh;. ePMJ/. kw;Wk; jiyikg;bghwpahsh;. (bghJ) bghgJ. brd;id?5 mth;fSf;F mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,g;gzpapy; 10 Mz;LfSf;F nky; xg;ge;j mog;gilapy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk; gzpahsh;fspd; gzptud;Kiw bra;tjw;fhd fUj;JU xU rpwg;g[ epfH;thf fUjp rkh;g;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ 1/ fhv{;rpg[uk; khtl;l Ml;rpah; Kd;dpiyapy; braw;bghwpahsh;. bghgJ epyePh; nfhl;lk;. brd;id?113 mth;fshy; cs;S:h; ,isv{h;fSf;F ePnuw;W gzpapy; gzp tH';fg;gLk; vd Vw;Wf;bfhz;L ,g;gzpahsh;fSf;F xg;ge;j gzp tH';fg;gl;lJ/ vdnt. murpd; tpjpfis jsh;j;jp ,jid rpwg;g[ epfH;thf fUjp ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ 2/ ,th;fs; ,g;gzpapy; rpwe;j njh;r;rp bgw;Ws;sjhy; ,th;fs; gzp muRj; Jiwf;F mj;jpahtrpakhfpwJ/ 3/ ,g;gzpf;F btspa{hpypUe;J gzpahsh;fis epakpf;f ,ayhJ/ 4/ ,th;fs; gzpf;fhd Cjpak; fzf;fplg;gl;L IGCAR-lk; ,Ue;J jpUk;g bgwg;gLtjhy; ,th;fs; gzp epue;juk; bra;tJ muRf;F TLjy; epjpr;Rik Vjk; Vw;glhJ vdt[k; braw;bghwpahsh; mth;fs; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ .....
nkYk; ,f;fUj;JUit gzpapd; jd;ik kw;Wk; mj;jpahtrpak; fUjp jdp epfH;thf fUjp ghpe;Jiuf;FkhW gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/, shows that the case of the petitioners deserves acceptance for their regularisation. Subsequently, finding no response, when more representations were given seeking regularisation of their services, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ground Water Division, Chennai, in his letter No.E3/346/2014-1 dated 29.1.2016 addressing the Chief Engineer, ESG-GSO, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam, has also requested as follows:-
In this connection I recall the meeting of the District Collector Kancheepuram held on 23.12.2004 where five representatives of IGCAR & BHAVINI were present and it was agreed to employ at least 10 persons from each panchayat totalling to 200 persons. However, the total commitment was then not complied, however considering the present crisis it may please be explored whether a sizeable number of the existing 45 persons could be employed in DAE to tide over the present labor crisis.
Hence I request the DAE to recommend the regularization of the remaining service contract personnel to Government of Tamil Nadu specifically mentioning that the operating power plants would be shut down if the water supply is affected. Hence I kindly request the proposal may please be recommended to Government for regularisation. 8.3. Thirdly, when the claim of the petitioners is based on G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006, the contention made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5 that the said G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.2.2006 has been superseded by the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013, cannot be accepted, in view of the subsequent order passed by this Court quashing paragraph-6 of the G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.6.2013 in a batch of writ petitions as aforementioned.
9. In the light of the above, the contention made the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5 that the proposal made in respect of two other persons similarly placed like that of the petitioners for regularization was already rejected on 20.9.2014, also must fail.
10. For all the aforementioned reasons, these writ petitions shall stand allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Speaking/Non speaking order 23.01.2018
Index : yes/no
Issue copy on 30.1.2018
ss
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Public Works Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2. The Engineer-in-Chief
Chief Engineer (General)
Water Resources Organisation Department
Public Works Department
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
3. The Engineer-in-Chief
Chief Engineer (General)
Water Resources Organisation Department
Public Works Department
Tharamani
Chennai 600 113
4. The Executive Engineer
Chennai Division, Ground Water
Water Resources Organisation Department
Public Works Department
Tharamani
Chennai 600 113
5. The Assistant Executive Engineer
Ground Water, Sub Division No.IV
Public Works Department
Tharamani
Chennai 600 113
6. The Chief Engineer ESG-GSO
Department of Atomic Energy
Kalpakkam
Kanchipuram District
T.RAJA, J.
ss
W.P.Nos.2739 to 2753, 2856 to 2870
& 2920 to 2934 of 2017
23.01.2018