Madras High Court
V. Manoharan vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2016
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.07.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition Nos. 33614 of 2012 14599, 21598, 24944, 24945, 24946, 24947, 30721, 37650, 40965, 40966 of 2015 3378, 7119, 7120, 7121, 18326 and 18373 of 2016 -- WP No. 33614 of 2012 1. V. Manoharan 2. A. Puratchithasan 3. R. Tamilselvam 4. R. Ambedh 5. M. Babu 6. V. Karthikeyan 7. S. Suresh 8. M. Krishnamurthy 9. J. Jayanathan 10. R. Santhakumar 11. D. Bhaskar 12. A. Johnson 13. M. Anandaraj 14. M. Sundar 15. D. Sekar 16. E. Shanmugam 17. M. Ayyanar 18. K. Elumalai 19. R. Sekar 20. B. Manivannan 21. P. Raju 22. A. Chinnayan 23. P. Govindasamy 24. D. Govindasamy 25. C. Pradeepan 26. M. Palanivelu 27. S. Vijayakumar 28. P.R. Madhavan 29. R. Mohan 30. A. Govindaraj 31. A.K. Rajendran 32. K. Balaraman 33. G. Dhakshnamurthy 34. E. Sekar 35. L. Loganathan 36. K. ARul 37. P. Kuselan 38. S. Mohammadessa 38. P. Dhanasekar 40. G. Subbarayan 41. M. Elumalai 42. M. Balakrishnan 43. M. Raja 44. A. Manogaran 45. S. Pakkiri 46. A. Maarimuthu 47. G. Perumal 48. K. Dillibabu 49. A. Chandran 50. R. Antony 51. V. Thangaraj 52. M. Nagaraj 53. R. Gajendran 54. N. Stanley 55. M. Ranganathan 56. K. Arumugam 57. Ramadass 58. R. Thirunavukkarasu 59. C. Sadasivam 60. Sridhar 61. K. Annappan 62. C. Shanmugam 63. M. Moorthy 64. K. Srinivasan 65. S. Gnaneswaran 66. R. Umapathy 67. A. Velu 68. R. Niraimathi 69. C. Natarajan 70. T. Muthuselvam 71. S. Chinnadurai 72. R. Nedunchezhiyan 73. P. Duraikannu 74. K. Ramakrishnan 75. A. Mayakrishnan 76. S. Antony 77. S. Kandasamy 78. C. Govindan 79. V. Elavarasan 80. G. Pandiyan 81. E. Elangovan 82. E. Dillibabu 83. M. Sakthivel 84. K. Panchanathan 85. U. Devi 86. M. Ponnan 87. R. Mani 88. K. Subramani 89. M. Devaraj 90. R. Munusamy .. Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Shipping No.1, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110 001 2. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001 3. The Chief Mechanical Engineer Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001 4. The Chairman cum Managing Director Ennore Port Trust P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai No.23, First Floor, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001 5. The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 6. The Special Officer Chennai Dock Employees Credit Thrift Society Limited 2nd Line Beach Road Chennai - 600 001 7. The General Secretary Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association Iron Ore Handling Bharathi Dock-II Chennai Port Trust Chennai - 600 001 .. Respondents WP No. 33614 of 2012:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the service of the petitioners as Class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust with effect from the date of their initial appointment and grant all the benefits that are paid to the Class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust with retrospective effect with all monetary and other attendant benefits. WP No. 33614 of 2012 For Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Ramesh for M/s. Samanta and Ston For Respondents : Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Advocate for M/s. P. Wilson Associates for Port Trust COMMON ORDER
In all these 17 writ petitions, the question arise for consideration is common and identical. The learned counsel appearing for both sides have advanced common arguments. Therefore, by consent of counsel for both sides, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. For the purpose of disposal of these batch of cases, the facts which gave rise to filing WP No. 18326 of 2016 is dealt with in common, as a test case.
3. According to the petitioner in WP No. 18326 of 2016, he is an employee of the second respondent Port Trust, employed as Spillage Handling Worker, for more than 25 years without any break in service and drawing regular time scale of pay on par with class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was originally recruited through a society called Madras Port Spillage Handling Worker's Association after the said Society has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the second respondent Port Trust.
4. According to the petitioner in WP No. 18326 of 2016, he was appointed on 01.02.1990 through the Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association and was drawing salary through the said Association. According to the petitioner, the Association was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and it was formed for the purpose of engaging spillage handling workers in the Port Trust. it is his contention that his nature of work involves cleaning of iron ore spillages in the second respondent port trust. He would further contend that he is in continued and uninterrupted service with the second respondent Port Trust. It is his further contention that the second respondent Port Trust, by a proceedings dated 06.12.2012 terminated the Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association by declaring that the services of the petitioner is no longer required by the Chennai Port Trust. In such circumstance, the petitioner along with 89 others have filed WP No. 33814 of 2012 before this Court with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Chennai Port Trust to regularise their service on par with class IV employees of the Port Trust from the date of their initial appointment and to confer all consequential service and monetary benefits with retrospective effect. Pending WP No. 33814 of 2012, by order dated 04.07.2014 in MP No. 2 of 2014 in WP No. 33614 of 2012, this Court granted an interim direction directing the Port Trust to pay the last drawn salary to all the 90 petitioners from 07.12.2012 and pay the same pending disposal of the above writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, Chennai Port Trust has filed W.A. No. 1091 of 2014 before this Court and the writ appeal was dismissed on 02.09.2014. A further appeal was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP Civil No. 29550 of 2014. The Honourable Supreme Court, by recording the submissions made on behalf of the Chennai Port Trust to the effect that the petitioners will be paid regular time scale of pay on par with others, has disposed of the Special Leave Petition.
5. According to the petitioner in WP No. 18326 of 2016, being the test case, his date of birth is 12.05.1958 and as per the Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1976, his date of superannuation is 31.05.2018. However, the third respondent, erroneously invoking the memorandum of understanding between the Chennai Port Trust and Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association has passed an order dated 11.05.2016, which was not directly communicated to the petitioner, but to one T. Jayasekar, from whom the petitioner came to know that he was sought to be relieved from duty on 31.05.2016 on the ground he completed 58 years of age. The order dated 11.05.2016 was passed purportedly on the ground that the Memorandum of Understanding with the Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association has been terminated.
6. According to the petitioner in WP No. 18326 of 2016, one of the employees who was issued with a similar relieving order approached this Court by filing WP No. 14599 of 2015 challenging the order relieving him from duty and for a consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to continue his employment till he attains the age of 60 years as per the Chennai Port Trust Employees' (Retirement) Regulation, 1976. Pending WP No. 14599 of 2015, this Court granted interim stay on 21.05.2015 based on which the petitioner therein is continuing in service. As regards the petitioner, the officials of the Chennai Port Trust are preventing him from attending to the work. In such circumstance the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 11.05.2016 by specifically contending that the benefit of the order passed by this Court on 21.05.2016 passed in MP No. 2 of 2015 in WP No. 14599 of 2015 has to be extended in his favour so as to enable him to continue his employment.
7. In this batch of cases, the petitioners would contend that they are eligible to the provisions of the Chennai Port Trust Employees' (Retirement) Regulation, 1976 and therefore, they cannot be relieved from the service even before they could attain the age of superannuation. In this context, useful reference can be made to the cases filed by the petitioner individually, the date of order which was challenged by such petitioner in the writ petition, the date on which they claim to attain the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years.
Sl.No. WP No. Date of order Date of retirement
1. 33614 of 2012 --- ---
2. 14599 of 2015 09.04.2014 30.04.2015
3. 21598 of 2015 09.03.2014 31.03.2015
4. 24944 of 2015 07.06.2014 30.06.2015
5. 24945 of 2015 06.11.2014 30.11.2014
6. 24946 of 2015 09.10.2014 31.10.2014
7. 24947 of 2015 11.04.2014 30.04.2014
8. 30721 of 2015 19.09.2015 30.09.2015
9. 37650 of 2015 19.11.2015 30.11.2015
10. 40965 of 2015 19.12.2015 31.12.2015
11. 40966 of 2015 19.12.2015 31.12.2015
12. 3378 of 2016 22.01.2016 31.01.2016
13. 7119 of 2016 25.02.2016 29.02.2016
14. 7120 of 2016 25.02.2016 29.02.2016
15. 7121 of 2016 25.02.2016 29.02.2016
16. 18326 of 2016 11.05.2016 31.05.2016
17. 18373 of 2016 11.05.2016 31.05.2016
8. Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for most of the petitioners, would contend that the age of retirement of the petitioners is 60 as has been provided under the Chennai Port Trust Employees' (Retirement) Regulation, 1976. He would further contend that the respondents have passed the impugned order without application of mind inasmuch as WP No. 33814 of 2012 filed by the petitioner in WP No. 18326 of 2016 and 89 others is pending before this Court. It is further contended that the memorandum of understanding entered into between Chennai Port Trust and Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association on 02.05.1985 has been terminated on 06.12.2012, in such circumstance, invoking a clause in the Memorandum of Understanding to relieve the petitioners from service on the ground that they attained the age of superannuation is illegal. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per the interim order granted by this Court in MP No. 2 of 2014 in WP No. 30614 of 2012, the petitioners therein have to be paid the last drawn salary from 07.12.2012 pending disposal of the above writ petition. In such circumstances, the petitioners have to be treated on par with clause IV employees who are directly paid by the Chennai Port Trust and they have to be relieved only on attaining the age of 60 years from service.
9. Opposing the writ petitions, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Chennai Port Trust, would contend that until the year 2011, the Chennai Port Trust used to handle iron and ore Cargo. During the course of such work, the Chennai Port Trust engaged the service of the spillage workers who have formed themselves into an Association called the Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association. The said association has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.05.1995. The members of the association were thereafter engaged from time to time by the Chennai Port Trust in relation to handling the spillage on contractual basis as per the terms recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.05.1995. According to the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, even before the formation of such association, the predecessors of the Association namely Madras Port Trust Employees Union has filed WP No. 9011 of 1987 before this Court praying for a Mandamus to direct the Chennai Port Trust to regularise and absorb the Spillage Workers in the union as regular employees of the Chennai Port Trust. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.07.1995 without any liberty from this Court to file a fresh writ petition. As mentioned above, till 2011, Chennai Port Trust engaged in iron and ore cargo. Thereafter, on the basis of the Judgment dated 11.05.2011 passed by this Court in WP No. 11747 of 2002 etc., batch, Chennai Port Trust was restrained from handling iron and ore cargo at the Chennai Port Trust. Before 2011, when the Chennai Port Trust handled the iron and ore Cargo, they required the services of the Spillage workers. After the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the service of the Spillage workers is no longer required to handle the spillage. In such circumstances, WP No. 33814 of 2012 was filed before this Court by 90 employees praying for a Mandamus and obtained an interim order on 11.05.2011. The writ appeal in W.A. No. 1091 of 2014 filed by the Chennai Port Trust was dismissed on 02.09.2014 with an observation that since the interim order alone is questioned, a direction was issued to the Writ Court to take up the writ petition for final hearing and to dispose it of within a period of six weeks. The further appeal preferred by the Port Trust before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 29550 of 2014 was also dismissed on 05.11.2014. In the meantime, the second respondent, vide letter dated 06.12.2012, rescinded the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.05.1995 specifically stating that the service of the spillage workers is no longer required by the Chennai Port Trust as iron and ore cargo are not handled by the Chennai Port Trust.
10. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that the petitioners, who are engaged on contractual basis as spillage workers, cannot be construed to be the employees employed by the Port Trust. There is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the Chennai Port Trust. All along, the petitioners have been employed on contract basis, especially their services were utilised intermittently. The petitioners were not paid salary by the Chennai Port Trust and the amount was paid to the contractor who in turn paid the amount in consideration of the work done by the individual petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, there is no jural relationship of employer-employee exist between the petitioner and the Chennai Port Trust at any point of time.
11. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent would further contend that the Chennai Port Trust never employed any spillage handling workers as an employee, but only engaged their services from time to time through a contractor. Further, when the Chennai Port Trust stopped handling iron and ore cargo by virtue of the judgment rendered by this Court, even the work of spillage handling comes to an end and resultantly, the service of the spillage handling workers is no longer required by the Chennai Port Trust. However, even after the work of handling spillage ceased to exist in Chennai Port Trust, based on an order passed by this Court, Chennai Port Trust decided to engage the services of the petitioner on contractual basis for various other works. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they have to be treated on par with Class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust cannot be accepted.
12. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents would further contend that the Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1976 apply only to those employees borne on the schedule of the Board and Shore Labour Establishment. The spillage workers never comes under the definition of the employees within the meaning of Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment, Promotion) Regulations. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, the retirement regulations of the Chennai Port Trust cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners were appointed only as a contractual employee and they cannot be treated on par with the regular employees. Even such contractual employment was entertained only on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Association and such Memorandum of Understanding has been rescinded on 06.12.2012. The petitioners are continuing in the contractual employment and drawing salary only on the basis of the interim order granted by this Court. Almost all the petitioners, who have attained the age of 58 years, are continuing in the employment by reason of the interim order granted by this Court. Most of the petitioners have also crossed the age of 60 years and therefore, as long as those petitioners are concerned, the relief sought for in the respective writ petition filed by them has become infructuous.
13. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the claim made by the petitioners in this case would squarely come within the parameters laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the off-quoted judgment rendered in (State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi) reported in (2006 ) 4 SCC Page No.1 wherein it was held that persons who have gained employment through back door entry cannot be regularised in their service. In the present case also, the petitioners were never employed directly by the Chennai Port Trust and they were engaged by the Chennai Port Trust through an Association on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding. Even the Memorandum of Understanding also came to be rescinded on 06.12.2012, while so, the claim made by the petitioners that they should be treated on par with Class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust and the provisions of Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1976 cannot be considered. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions as devoid of merits.
14. I heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/Port Trust. I had perused the materials placed on record.
15. On appreciation of the facts narrated above, this Court has to only observe that this case is a classic example as to how judicial process can be subverted at the instance of the persons like the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners is that they are employees employed under the Chennai Port Trust and consequently, the benefits of the provisions of Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1976 has to be extended in their favour which would enable them to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years. By contending so, till this date, some of the petitioners are clinging on their employment even after they have crossed the age of 58 years by virtue of an interim order granted by this Court.
16. In my considered opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to claim that they have to be construed as employees employed by the Chennai Port Trust and consequently they are entitled for extending the provisions of Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1976. The reasons for this conclusion is manifold. First of all, the petitioners were not directly appointed by the Chennai Port Trust. Even as per the admission of the petitioners, they were appointed through contractor as a Spillage collectors in the Chennai Port Trust when it handled iron and ore cargo. Such activities to handle iron and ore cargo have been carried on by the Chennai Port Trust till 10.05.2011. On 11.05.2011, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order at the instance of Avoor Muthiah Maistry Street Residents Welfare Association, in WP No. 11747 of 2002. Similar other writ petitions filed were also covered in the order dated 11.05.2011. As per the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.05.2011, the Chennai Port Trust was directed not to deal with iron and ore cargo any longer instead all the dusty cargoes like coal, iron ore and all other cargoes should be shifted to Ennore Port Trust on and from 01.10.2011. In the said order, the Division Bench also observed that the Chennai Port Trust has to ensure that not even a single employee is retrenched or otherwise made to lose his or her livelihood because of the distribution of cargoes between Ennore Port Trust and Chennai Port Trust. It is in the light of this observation, even after rescinding the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Chennai Port Trust and Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association on 06.12.2012, the Chennai Port Trust, out of a humanitarian gesture, accommodated the petitioners in various other works on contractual basis. At any rate, the petitioners were employed only on contract basis on and off as a spillage collectors and thereafter on various capacities on contractual basis. This is not denied by the petitioners.
17. It is seen from the records that on 03.04.2014, the respondents/Port Trust passed an order in favour of T. Jayaseelan, who was the contractor engaged by the respondents. In the said letter, it was stated that contract was awarded in his favour for a period of three months for excavation of earth for laying of pipe line for water supply and the contract work shall be completed by engaging three workers. In the said order, in clause 16 and 17, it was stated as follows:-
"16. The workers thus engaged shall be relieved from the contract after they attain the age of 58 years and they shall not be replaced by any new person other than the existing erstwhile spillage Handling workers.
17. The contractor is the employer for these workers and there would be no employer employee relationship between the Chennai Port Trust and the erstwhile spillage handling workers.
18. Similar orders, extending the contract in favour of the contractors have been enclosed from page No. 132 of the typed set filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. In all these letters sent by the Chennai Port Trust, it is clearly stated that the work is awarded only on contract basis and there is no employer employee relationship between the Chennai Port Trust and the workers to be engaged by the Contractor. It is also stated that no new person shall be engaged other than the erstwhile Spillage Handling Worker. This clause was inserted as a compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.05.2011 to the effect that no single employee should be retrenched from the employment depriving his or her livelihood. It is with this object, the words, " no new person shall be engaged other than the erstwhile Spillage Handling Worker" has been indicated in the letter of contract. Thus, it is evident that the petitioners are employed as a contractual employees under a contractor with whom Chennai Port Trust entered into a contract. The petitioners have no direct relationship with the Checnai Port Trust, much less a relationship of employer-employee. In such circumstances, the petitioners can never be construed as employee for the purpose of extending the benefits of Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1976, which are meant for regular employees employed by the Chennai Port Trust.
19. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents/Port Trust invited the attention of this Court to clause No.4 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.05.1995 under the heading "Terms and conditions" wherein it was stated as under:-
"(4) The worker-members will be removed from the membership list of the Association on attaining 58 years of age. If any worker-member is not able to produce proof of age to the satisfaction of the Madras Port Trust Administration, the age of such worker shall be decided by a Board of three Medical Officers, nominated for the purpose, by the Chairman of the Madras Port Trust. The decision of such Medical Board as to the age of such workers shall be final.
20. Thus, there is a specific clause incorporated in the memorandum of understanding dated 02.05.1995 relating to the age of retirement of the contractual workers at 58. Even according to the petitioners, they continued their contract work under the Madras Port Trust Spillage Workers Association and therefore, they have to be relieved from the spillage collection work if he or she attains the age of 58 years. This has not been challenged by the petitioners and it becomes final. While so, this Court is at a loss to understand as to what is the basis on which the petitioners are claiming any right to continue beyond the age of 58 years or how they could be extended the benefit of the Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1976 which is intended for the regular employees. At the risk of repetition, it is to be stated that even the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.05.1995 has been rescinded by the Chennai Port Trust on 06.12.2012 and it was not also challenged by the petitioners in a manner known to law.
21. The petitioners are continuing in their contract employment only by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 04.07.2014 in MP No. 2 of 2014 in WP No. 33614 of 2012. In WP No. 33614 of 2012, the petitioners sought for the relief of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise their service as Class IV employees of the Chennai Port Trust with effect from the date of their intial appointment and grant all the benefits that are being paid to the Class IV employee of the Chennai Port Trust with retrospective effect with all monetary and other benefits. If really the petitioners were employed under the Chennai Port Trust directly, as claimed or there was any employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the Chennai Port Trust, the petitioners ought not to have filed WP No. 33614 of 2012 with a prayer to regularise their service. Therefore, even the prayer sought for in WP No. 33614 of 2012 would indicate that they are not employees employed by the Chennai Port Trust.
22. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi) reported in (2006) 4 SCC Page No.1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down parameters for consideration of regularisation of the employees. It was also held therein that those employees who have secured employment by resorting to back door entry cannot be considered for regularisation even though they have rendered long number of years of service on daily wage basis or otherwise.
42. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include the right to employment cannot also be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the instance of the employees before us would lead to the consequence of depriving a large number of other aspirants of an opportunity to compete for the post or employment. Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the courts recognize that an appointment to a post in government service or in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper selection in the manner recognized by the relevant legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of individualizing justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few who are before the court. The Directive Principles of State Policy have also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument based on Article 21 of the Constitution.
43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.
47. Coming to Civil Appeal Nos. 1861-2063 of 2001, in view of our conclusion on the questions referred to, no relief can be granted, that too to an indeterminate number of members of the association. These appointments or engagements were also made in the teeth of directions of the Government not to make such appointments and it is impermissible to recognize such appointments made in the teeth of directions issued by the Government in that regard. We have also held that they are not legally entitled to any such relief. Granting of the relief claimed would mean paying a premium for defiance and insubordination by those concerned who engaged these persons against the interdict in that behalf. Thus, on the whole, the appellants in these appeals are found to be not entitled to any relief. These appeals have, therefore, to be dismissed."
23. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case mentioned supra, regularising the service of those who continued in service on the basis of an interim order passed by the Court would amount to paying premium for defiance and insubordination. The said observation of the Honourable Supreme Court mentioned supra would squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In this batch of cases, the petitioners have made ingenious attempt to get some relief or the other knowing fully well that they are not entitled to such relief. However, in the garb of interim order passed by this Court, some of the petitioners continued in employment even after attaining the age of 60 years on contract basis. At any rate, the relief sought for in these writ petitions either to direct the respondents to regularise the service or to extend the benefit of Chennai Port Trust Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1976 in their favour cannot be countenanced especially when the petitioners continued as a contract employees. The relief sought for in these writ petitions are devoid of any merits and the writ petitions deserve only to be dismissed.
24. For all the above reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.07.2016 rsh To
1. Union of India rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Shipping No.1, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001
3. The Chief Mechanical Engineer Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001
4. The Chairman cum Managing Director Ennore Port Trust P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai No.23, First Floor, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001
5. The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009
6. The Special Officer Chennai Dock Employees Credit Thrift Society Limited 2nd Line Beach Road Chennai - 600 001 B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh WP Nos. 33614 of 2012 14599, 21598, 24944, 24945, 24946, 24947, 30721, 37650, 40965, 40966 of 2015 3378, 7119, 7120, 7121, 18326 and 18373 of 2016 22.07.2016