Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Ravirajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2016

Author: T.Raja

Bench: T.Raja

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED  :  28.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

W.P.Nos.6410 to 6412 of 2014 


S.Ravirajan		..	Petitioner in W.P.No.6410 of 2014
R.Arsingh		..	Petitioner in W.P.No.6411 of 2014
K.Perumal Sami		..	Petitioner in W.P.No.6412 of 2014

-vs-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
      rep.by its Secretary		
    Higher Education Department
    Fort St.George
    Chennai 600 009	..	Respondent No.1 in all the W.P's

2. The Executive Engineer 
    Technical Education Division No.I
    No.82, Kayathemilleth Street
    Trichy-20
    (Now at Government 
     College of Engineering
     Campus, Tirunelveli-7)	..	Respondent No.2 in all the W.P's

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer 
    (Electrical) Technical Education 
    Sub Division
    Government College of
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7		..	Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.6410 of 2014

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer 
    (Civil) Technical Education 
    Sub Division
    Government College of
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7		..	Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.6411 of 2014

5. The Assistant Executive Engineer 
    (Civil) Technical Education 
    Sub Division
    No.6, Khaja Meeyan Street
    Trichy-20
    (Now at Government College of
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7)		..	Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.6412 of 2014

6. The Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
    Technical Education Section
    Government College of 
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7		..	Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.6410 of 2014

7. The Assistant Engineer (Civil)
    Technical Education Section
    Government College of 
      Engineering Campus		Respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.6411 of 2014
    Tirunelveli-7		..	    & 6412 of 2014

	Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to consider the representations dated 10.12.2013 to bring the petitioners above named into regular establishment/time scale of pay with all consequential benefits both service and monetary.

	For Petitioners	::	Mr.M.T.Arunan

	For Respondents	::	Mr.S.Gunasekaran
				Additional Government Pleader


ORDER

All the three petitioners, claiming to be receiving daily wages and working continuously in the Government Engineering College, Palayamkottai as Gardeners from 1.2.95, have come to this Court seeking a common prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider their representations to bring them into regular establishment/time scale of pay with all consequential benefits, both service and monetary.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners have been working in the Government Engineering College, Palayamkottai on daily wage basis as Gardeners from 1.2.95. For the reason that their services were not regularised even after five years from the date of joining duty, O.A.Nos.2435 & 2437 of 2001 were filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking an order of injunction forbearing the respondents from ousting them from service as NMR Civil Gardeners from the college with a consequential direction to regularise their services as per the policy and Government Orders issued from time to time in this regard. Adding further, he submitted that the Tribunal, by its order dated 4.4.2001, directed the respondents to continue the petitioners in service in the same fashion and the manner in which they have been continued all along, if the work performed by them continued to be available. In the light of the order passed by the Tribunal on 4.4.2001, the petitioners were permitted by the college to continue in service after utilising them as Plumber/Watering the garden/Electrician Helper manually and allowed them to work continuously in the same capacity. Since the respondents, even after receipt of the order, failed to take action, they made representations followed by reminders. Again all those went in vain. In the meanwhile, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006 to regularise the services of employees working on daily wage basis like the petitioners, if they have completed ten years of service as on 1.1.2006. As the petitioners are working from 1.2.95 continuously, they are entitled to get the benefit of the said Government Order.

3. Continuing his arguments, he submitted that in the meanwhile, after the abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Applications stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.Nos.3598 & 3599 of 2006 and finally this Court also, by order dated 1.3.2010, passed the following order:-

4. Despite notice from the Tribunal, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. However, it is now brought to the notice of this Court that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006. In the said order, it was stated that the services of the daily wages employees working in Government Departments who have rendered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularised, in consultation with the respective Heads of Departments, if necessary. It is also stated that in special cases, wherein relaxation of rules is required, proposal shall be sent to Government.

5. In the light of the above, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedies if they are still in service in terms of the Government Order referred to above and seek for regularisation.

4. When there is a specific direction given by this Court directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners making it clear that even if relaxation of rules is required as a special case, proposals shall be sent to the Government, again the respondents have not come forward to regularise them. Therefore, he pleaded that a suitable direction should be issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners.

5. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1995 to take care of the gardening work. Although they were continuously working, they are not entitled to get the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.2.2006, because the petitioners have to fulfill the condition of ten years service with a minimum of 90 working days in a year. Adding further he submitted that subsequent to the said Government Order, another G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 27.6.2013 has been issued, wherein in paragraph 6(vii), it has been stated that the services of the full time daily wage employees who have completed ten years of service after 1.1.2006 shall not be regularised, because the proposals for regularisation of the full time daily wage employees should be sent to the Government even in case where relaxation of rules is not involved. Therefore, the question of regularising the services of the petitioners does not lie with the respondents, since they can only be directed to consider the case of the petitioners.

6. Heard both sides.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Gardeners on daily wage basis from 1.2.95. After working for a long time, finding no response from the respondents to regularise their services, they approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.2435 & 2437 of 2001 seeking for an order of regularisation. On 4.4.2001, the Tribunal passed the following order:-

Admit. Notice returnable by four weeks. Private notice permitted. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioners in service in the same fashion and the manner in which they have been continued all along, if the work performed by the petitioners is continuing to be available. In the meanwhile, the matters came up on transfer to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.Nos.3598 & 3599 of 2006. When this Court, finding that the respondents did not file counter affidavits in the main Original Applications before the Tribunal, taking note of the G.O.Ms.No.22, P & AR Department dated 28.2.2006 making it clear that the services of the daily wage employees working in Government Departments who have rendered 10 years of service as on 1.1.2006 be regularised in consultation with the respective Heads of Departments, if necessary and that in special cases, wherein relaxation of rules is required, proposal shall be sent to Government, finally disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions by its order dated 1.3.2010, it is not known why the case of the petitioners for regularisation has not been considered by the respondents. It may be mentioned herein that the said order has also not been challenged. Today the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed affidavits stating that the petitioners are working continuously from the date of their appointment on 1.2.95 to till date. Even paragraph-6 of the counter affidavits also show that the petitioners are working from June 1995/February 1997 till 2006. But after 2006, no particulars have been mentioned. Therefore this Court, placing on record the affidavits filed by the petitioners that they are working continuously under the respondents and taking note of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3598 & 3599 of 2006 dated 1.3.2010, hereby directs the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners, as they have put in more than 20 years of service. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.6410 & 6411 of 2014 have not been paid with the salary, the first respondent shall consider this aspect also while passing orders.

8. With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Index   : yes/no					       28.04.2016

ss
To

1. The Secretary to Government		
    Higher Education Department
    Fort St.George
    Chennai 600 009	

2. The Executive Engineer 
    Technical Education Division No.I
    Government College of 
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7	

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)
    Technical Education  Sub Division
    Government College of
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7		

4. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil)
    Technical Education  Sub Division
    Government College of
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7	

5. The Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
    Technical Education Section
    Government College of 
      Engineering Campus
    Tirunelveli-7		

6. The Assistant Engineer (Civil)
    Technical Education Section
    Government College of 
      Engineering Campus		
    Tirunelveli-7









T.RAJA, J.

ss









W.P.Nos.6410 to 6412 of 2014








28.04.2016