Madras High Court
For Appellants In Mr. P.H.Arvind ... vs M. Rani
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 24.06.2015 DELIVERED ON: 30.06.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.A. Nos.1289, 1410, 1411, 1537, 1557, 1558, 1608, 1609 and 1736 of 2014 and 270, 279, 293, 300, 335, 365, 477, 492, 514, 518, 598, 623, 629, 652 to 654, 664, 677, 693, 696, 721, 768, 778 and 779 of 2015 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions 1 The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2 The Director of Town Panchayat Kuralagam Chennai 600 108 3 The Executive Officer Thiruneermalai Town Panchayat Kancheepuram District Appellants in W.A. No.1289/2014 Vs M. Rani Respondent in W.A. No.1289/2014 Prayer in W.A. No.1289 of 2014: Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 24.07.2013 passed in W.P. No.18840 of 2013. For appellants in Mr. P.H.Arvind Pandian,Addl.Adv.Gen. all the appeals assisted by Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan Spl. Govt. Pleader For respondents in Mr. A.R. Suresh WA Nos.1289, 1609 for Mr. A. Baskaran of 2014 & 677 of 2015 For respondents in WA Nos.1410, 1411, 1736 of 2014, 300, 365,518,598,693, Mr. P.I. Thirumoorthy 696,721,629,652, 664,768,778 and 779 of 2015 For respondents in WA No.1537/2014 Mr. S. Palanivelayutham-No appearance For respondent in WA No.1558/2014 & Mr. V. Vijayashankar 653 of 2015 In WA Nos.1557/2014, 279, 293,335,492,514,623 Notice served. No appearance and 273/2015 In WA No.1608 of 2014 Notice served on RR 1&2-No appearance For R3, service is awaited In WA No.477 of 2015 Notice served on RR 2-6-No appearance For R1, service is awaited COMMON JUDGMENT
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
The instant appeals are filed by the State Government and the respective Town Panchayats against the orders passed separately by learned Single Judges, wherein, it was held that the writ petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their service on completion of three years from the date of initial appointment/entry into service.
2 Since all the writ appeals involve only the aforesaid issue, all these writ appeals are being considered and decided by this common judgment.
3 For the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status in the instant appeals.
4 All the respondents are similarly situated, having been appointed during the period 1996 - 2001 on the posts of Sweeper, Electrician, Fitter, etc. against the vacancies created by separate Government Orders issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department in G.O. Ms.No.199 dated 12.08.1997, G.O. Ms.No.72 dated 05.05.1998, G.O. Ms. No.84 dated 21.05.1998 and G.O. Ms.No.198 dated 26.10.1998 for a period of one year on consolidated pay/daily wages. The said one year tenure was renewable for a maximum period of three years. The said Government Orders as well as the appointment orders issued to the respondents prescribe for grant of regular time scale of pay on assessment of the respondents' performance, after a period of three years. The details of appointment of the respondents and the relevant Government Orders, as projected by the State/appellants, under which they were appointed are given in the following tabular column. W.A. No. Name of respondent(s) Post of respondent Date of appointment Post sanctioned under which Government Order 1289/2014 M. Rani (her husband is employee) Sanitary Worker/ Sweeper 06.09.2000 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 1410/2014 K.C. Vincent Electrician 01.03.2001 G.O. Ms.No.72 1411/2014 P. Aliver Inbaraj P. Thangasamy Fitter Meter Reader 01.08.2001 03.08.2001 G.O. Ms.No.198 G.O. Ms.No.198 1537/2014 K. Perumal V. Srinivasan M. Nagarajan K. Vasagar Pipe Line Maintenance Helpers 20.06.1985 10.07.1992 14.02.1985 15.03.1982 G.O. Ms.No.242 G.O. Ms.No.242 G.O. Ms.No.242 G.O. Ms.No.242 1557/2014 T. Jayanthi Sanitary Worker/ Sweeper 02.05.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 1558/2014 D. Parameswari Sanitary Worker/ Sweeper 02.05.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 1608/2014 T. Kesavadhass P.S. Kumar Electrician Fitter 16.02.2001 01.08.2000 G.O. Ms.No.72 G.O. Ms.No.198 1609/2014 S. Arumugam Sanitary Worker/ Sweeper 06.09.2000 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 1736/2014 D. Martin K. Mani K. Jeyaraman P. Renganathan E. Indira Kumar Sanitary Workers/ Sweepers 01.01.1998 01.01.1998 01.01.1998 01.01.1998 01.01.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 279/2015 P. Velappan Watchman 01.01.2001 G.O. Ms.No.198 293/2015 G. Govindammal Sanitary Worker/ Sweeper 23.10.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 300/2015 M. Chandran Office Assistant 01.07.1998 G.O. Ms.No.84 335/2015 P. Balakrishnan M. Balakumar P. Durai Raj Gnanasekaran A. Sivaji Sanitary Workers/ Sweepers 10.07.1998 10.07.1998 31.07.2000 31.07.2000 31.07.2000 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 365/2015 M. Seeralan K. Murugan Rani T. Suriyamoorthy S. Raghunathan M. Ezhumalai K. Govindaraj V. Sanjivee Chandran Sanitary Workers/ Sweepers 01.12.1997 01.12.1997 01.11.1998 01.11.1998 01.11.1998 01.11.1998 01.11.1998 01.11.1998 01.06.2000 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 W.A. No. Name of writ petitioner(s) Post of worker Date of appt.
Place of appt.
477/2015 C. Manickam K. Abimannan M. Murugan K. Velan M. Chinnathai R. Parvathy Sanitary Workers/ Sweepers 01.06.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 492/2015 R. Sekar T. Chandran P. Muthuraman R. Rajamanickam Sanitary Workers/ Sweepers 01.04.1998 01.04.1998 01.04.1998 01.11.2001 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 514/2015 K. Dhanabal D. Karthikeyan A. Tamilvel Motor Operators 05.09.2001 G.O. Ms.No.198 G.O. Ms.No.198 G.O. Ms.No.198 518/2015 P. Chelladurai Sanitary Worker/Sweeper 02.05.1988 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 623/2015 M. Kavuraj Meter Reader 04.06.2001 G.O. Ms.No.198 598/2015 G. Karmegam R. Sadhasivam K. Radhakrishnan P. Chinnan S. Murugesan S. Kanaga Pappathi Sanitary Workers/ Sweepers 06.04.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 677/2015 R. Rajendran R. Dasingh Sanitary Worker/Sweeper 15.05.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 693/2015 M. Mathaiyan Sanitary Worker/Sweeper 03.06.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 696/2015 Kumari & her issues (R1's husband was employee) Sanitary Worker/Sweeper 29.06.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 721/2015 Lakshmi & her issues 1st petnr's husband was employee Sanitary Worker/Sweeper 16.07.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 270/2015 P. Saravanan N. Panneer C. Kalanchi P. Aruna K. Murugesan R. Murugan R. Senthilkumar A. Palanivel M. Rajendran A. Manickam Sanitary Workers/Sweepers 01.04.1999 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 629/2015 K. Lakshmi Sanitary Worker/Sweeper 28.09.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 W.A. No. Name of writ petitioner(s) Post of worker Date of appt.
Place of appt.
652/2015 Parvathy & her issues 1st petnr's husband was employee Sanitary Worker/Sweeper 19.01.1999 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 653/2015 R. Saravanan K. Chinnasamy K. Gopalakrishnan C. Raman K. Ramasamy P. Subamaniam A. Mariammal R. Mariyai S. Lakshmi E. Murugammal A. Palanisamy P. Somasundaram R. Subramaniam R. Periyaperumal K. Palanichamy P.R. Saravanan M. Rangasamy A. Palanichamy P. Parvathy V. Sankaran Sanitary Workers/Sweepers 23.07.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 664/2015 V. Vincent N. Rathinasamy Fitter Electrician Helper 01.11..2000 10.10.2001 G.O. Ms.No.198 G.O. Ms.No.72 768/2015 Y. Robinson G. John Victor N. Robinson M. Krishnan Electrician Helper Electrician Sanitary Worker/ Sweeper 01.10.2000 01.06.2001 01.12.1997 10.11.1998 G.O. Ms.No.72 G.O. Ms.No.72 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 778/2015 A. Venkatesan G. Mariyappan Govindasamy Govindan P. Venkatasamy G.S. Saravanan Sanitary Workers/ Sweepers 03.04.1998 G.O. Ms.Nos.199 and 84 779/2015 G. Ravikumar Motor Operator 17.08.2001 G.O. Ms.No.198 5 The learned Single Judges, relying on a Division Bench judgment dated 19.12.2008 rendered in W.A. No.1454 of 2007 in the Director of Town Panchayat and 2 others vs. R. Sundaradas (for short Sundaradas) and yet another Division Bench judgment dated 23.06.2010 rendered in W.A. Nos.47 and 385 of 2010 in the Executive Officer vs. C. Kittusamy and 11 others (for short Kittusami), directed the appellants to regularise the service of the respondents on completion of three years from the date of initial appointment, with all consequential monetary benefits.
6 Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would contend that the services of the respondents could not be regularised because of the ban imposed by the Government in filling up posts under G.O. Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 29.11.2001, till the said ban was lifted by the Government under G.O. Ms.No.14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 07.02.2006. The respondents were thereafter regularised with effect from June 2006 onwards. It is further contended that a Full Bench of this Court, in S. Dhanasekaran and 24 others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and 2 others1, had come to a categorical conclusion that the employees are entitled to regularisation in service, only from the date of Government Order and not prior to that.
7 On the other hand, M/s. A.R. Suresh, P.I. Thirumoorthy and V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the respondents (the writ petitioners) would submit that the instant appeals are not maintainable, as the issue in regard to regularisation after completion of three years is no longer res integra. According to them, the legality and validity of G.O.Ms.Nos.199 and 84 of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 12.08.1997 and 21.05.1998 respectively, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court directed the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent on completion of 3 years from the date of initial appointment. Thereagainst, a Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No.16217 of 2009, preferred by the Director of Town Panchayat and others was dismissed by order dated 16.03.2012. Consequent thereupon, most of the similarly-situated employees have been granted regularisation after completion of 3 years with consequential monetary benefits and as such, the State is estopped from raising and re-opening the same issue, which has attained finality. It is further contended that the Full Bench in S. Dhanasekaran (supra) was concerned only with G.O. Ms.No.101 and 71 dated 30.04.1997 and 05.05.1998 respectively of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, in respect of lifting of the general ban and also the employees of the Municipalities and Corporations and as such, the ratio laid down by the Full Bench is not applicable to the facts of this batch of cases. Thus, all the writ appeals preferred by the State and Director of Town Panchayat are liable to be dismissed.
8 We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
9 The State of Tamil Nadu, exercising powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 58 and sub-section (1) of Section 178 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, framed the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Establishment Rules, 1988 (for short the Establishment Rules) which came into force from 23.03.1989. The Establishment Rules regulate appointment of employees in Panchayats, including the Town Panchayats as is evident from Rule 2 of the General Rules, Part II. Rule 15(a), ibid, prescribes for temporary appointments, wherein, it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or any other Rules, where it is necessary in the public interest or for administrative reasons, to fill immediately, a vacancy in a post and there would be delay in making such appointment in accordance with these rules or any other rules governing such appointment, the appointing authority may, for reasons to be already recorded in writing, temporarily appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the said rules. It is further provided under Rule 15(b) that a person appointed under Rule 15(a) shall not be regarded as a probationer or be entitled only by reason of such appointment, to any preferential claim to a future appointment. The appointment shall be with a condition to replace, as soon as possible, by a qualified regular candidate so appointed. The third proviso to Rule 15(b) stipulates that the period of appointment shall not exceed one year at a time. Clause (c) of Rule 15, ibid, provides for payment of substantive pay or the minimum pay in the time scale of pay applicable to the post.
10 In addition to the Establishment Rules, there is a separate rule called the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats Establishment (Qualification and Recruitment of Office Assistant) Rules, 1988 (for short the Office Assistant Rules) which also deal with qualification for recruitment of Office Assistants, including Sanitary Worker, Scavenger, Sweeper, Gardener, Watchman, etc. Under the said Rules, there is a similar provision under Rule 14, wherein, it is prescribed that temporary appointment can be made in case of public interest or for administrative reasons, which shall not exceed one year at a time.
11 Vide G.O. Ms.No.199, Municipal Administratioin and Water Supply Department dated 12.08.1997, several posts were created. Under Clause 4 of the said Government Order, the Director of Town Panchayat is empowered to create additional posts of Sanitary Workers with inter alia certain conditions. We are concerned with relevant sub-clause (6) of clause (4) of the said Government Order, which clearly provides that such employees shall be appointed initially for a period of one year and thereafter, the appointments shall be renewed year after year, for a period of three years and after a period of three years, reviewing the competence of the employees, the Government shall issue orders with reference to appointing them in time scale of pay under regular basis. Further, under sub-clause (5) of clause (4), the consolidated pay of Rs.950/- was contemplated to be enhanced by 10% every year.
12 On the identical lines, in 1998, vide G.O. Ms.No.84, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 21.05.1998, more posts of Sanitary Workers and other employees were created with the identical condition for payment of consolidated pay and also their continuation for three years and thereafter, regularisation on the basis of their performance. For Municipalities and Corporations, similar Government Orders, viz., G.O. Ms.No.101 and G.O. Ms.No.71 dated 30.04.1997 and 05.05.1998 of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department were issued.
13 According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents were appointed by a proper selection on the basis of names drawn from employment exchange. The appellants had not denied the fact of their selection as per the prevailing system by drawing the names from employment exchange and by consideration and selection by the Select Committee. The respondents continued in the same capacity without removal or without regularisation.
14 In the meantime, the State came up with a Government Order in G.O. Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 29.11.2001 imposing ban for filling up all vacant posts, except the post of teachers, doctors and police constabulary, which was lifted subsequently vide G.O. Ms.No.14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 07.02.2006. It is not in dispute that all the respondents were appointed against newly created posts, as aforestated, before 29.11.2001.
15 On a careful perusal of G.O. Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 29.11.2001, it is manifest that there was a ban only qua filling up of post and not qua regularisation of services of employees appointed on consolidated pay with a condition that their services shall be placed on time-scale on regular cadre on review of their performance after a period of three years. The initial appointment order of some of the respondents have been placed before us. From a perusal of the same, it is luculent that the respondents were clearly informed that their appointment was temporary on consolidated pay and that one year period was renewable by enhancing pay by 10% every year. The respondents were further informed that, on the basis of their performance, there is probability of their being regularised in service.
16 At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the dispute involved herein has to be understood and appreciated in the contextual background. It is not a case, where, respondents, having been appointed on temporary basis, de hors the Constitutional scheme of employment, seek regularisation. (See State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi2, Union of India and others vs. A.S. Pillai and others3, State of Rajasthan and others vs. Daya Lal and others4 and Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. Thiru. R. Govindaswamy and Others5).
17 It is evident that the respondents were appointed in terms of the relevant rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, for the purpose of regulating the service conditions of the Panchayat employees, viz.,Sanitary Worker, Electrician, Electrician Helper, Fitter, Meter Reader, Pipe Line Maintenance Helper, Overhead Tank Operator, Watchman, Office Assistant, Motor Operator, etc. The relevant provisions of the Establishment Rules, viz., Rule 15, first proviso to Rule 15(b) read with third proviso to Rule 14 of the Office Assistant Rules, provide for appointment on temporary basis, in case of administrative necessity and public interest, initially, for a period of one year at a time and renewal thereafter.
18 In the cases on hand, the appointment orders were issued on same terms, appointing the respondents for one year, renewable on verification after every year for three years. The appointment orders clearly indicate that on the basis of review/assessment of the performance of the respondents for three years, they may be regularised. It is undeniable that all the respondents were allowed to continue on renewal of the period of appointment with increase in consolidated pay every year. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, their performance was properly assessed by the concerned Town Panchayats and their cases were forwarded to the Government for regularisation. It is also the case of the respondents that the appellants, taking recourse to G.O. Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 29.11.2001, failed to regularise their services.
19 As we have already held in the preceding paragraphs, G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 29.11.2001 does not deal with regularisation of the present employees/respondents. The said Government Order was only in respect of filling up of vacant posts. The instant cases do not fall within the ambit of the said Government Order and as such, the same is not applicable to the cases on hand. As a sequel, the respondents are entitled to consideration of their case for regularisation on completion of 3 years from the date of their appointment in terms of the appointment order as well as provisions of the relevant rules.
20 It is a trite law that an employee cannot claim regularisation without proper assessment on completion of a particular period of time, as is the scenario in the present cases. As held above, the respondents are not entitled to regularisation on completion of three years without proper assessment/verification of their 3 years' performance. The impugned orders of the learned Single Judge to the extent of granting regularisation on the heels of completion of three years with consequential benefits is unsustainable in the eye of law and as such, to that extent, the orders impugned in the instant appeals are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders impugned are modified to the extent that if proper assessment/review after three years has not been done by the concerned Town Panchayats, the concerned Town Panchayats are directed to assess/review the performance of the respondents on completion of three years and consider and pass appropriate orders accordingly. In the event, the assessment/review has been made and a list has been prepared on that basis, which, according to the respondents, has been forwarded to the Government, the same has to be considered for approval without further assessment.
21 A Division Bench of this Court in Sundaradas (supra), while examining the identical issue in respect of regularisation of employees who were appointed under G.O.Ms.Nos.199 and 84 of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 12.08.1997 and 21.05.1998 respectively, after completion of three years of their service, upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, it was held that the respondents have completed three years of service and the authorities have appraised their services and on being satisfied, recommended the case to the respondents for regularisation. Thus, they were held as entitled to regularisation after three years.
22 Relying on the aforesaid judgment dated 19.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court in C. Kittusamy (supra), dismissed the appeals on 23.06.2010, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge for regularisation after three years. It is informed that the Special Leave Petition preferred thereagainst has been dismissed at the admission stage itself. Thus, in all the writ petitions filed subsequently by other similarly-placed employees, similar order of regularisation after three years with consequential benefits was passed.
23 Yet again, a Division Bench of this Court, in the State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others vs. A. Kalaikumar, on the same issue, by judgment dated 12.03.2014, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Thereagainst, a Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) No.19006 of 2014 was preferred by the State which was dismissed on 30.03.2015.
24 In another batch of two writ appeals in L. Muthusamy and 4 others vs. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and 2 others (W.A. Nos.316 and 317 of 2013), wherein, the order of the learned Single Judge taking a contrary view was impugned, a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 02.04.2014, allowed the said appeals holding that the appellants therein are entitled to regularisation on having completed three years of satisfactory service.
25 In S. Dhanasekaran (supra), a Full Bench of this Court, on reference, with regard to regularisation of services of employees of Municipalities and Municipal Corporations appointed under G.O. Ms.No.101 dated 30.04.1997 and G.O. Ms.No.71 dated 05.05.1998 of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department in the light of G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 23.02.2006 of the same department, considered the fixation of cut-off date for regularisation of sanitary workers appointed on consolidated pay and held as under:
27 (c) Thus, a conjoint reading of G.O. Ms.No.101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 30.04.1997 and G.O. Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 23.02.2005, would go to clearly show that on completion of three years of service from the date of initial appointment, the Government had an option to examine the question of regularisation, which the Government did only in 2006 and it si the wisdom of the Government to give regularisation from any date (vide judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Madalaimuthu and another vs. State of T.N. and others, 2006 (6) SCC 558). Unless such date fixed by the Government, giving effect to the regularisation, is proved to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or any other Constitutional provision, it cannot be held, in vacuum, that the said norms prescribed in G.O. Ms.No.21 for the purpose of regularisation is either illegal or unconstitutional. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that regularisation of such Sanitary Workers, who are governed by G.O. Ms. No.101, 71 and 2, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 30.04.1997, 05.05.1998 and 23.02.2006 respectively, shall be only from 23.02.2006. The contrary view expressed elsewhere in the judgments referred to above, in our respectful view, are not correct. 26 The employees involved in the instant cases are Sanitary Workers, Electrician, Electrician Helper, Fitter, Meter Reader, Pipe Line Maintenance Helper, Overhead Tank Operator, Watchman, Office Assistant, Motor Operator, etc. appointed in Town Panchayats under other Government Orders, wherein, several Single Benches and Division Benches have considered the matter and held that the said employees appointed on consolidated pay are entitled to regularisation after three years.
27 As we have observed in the preceding paragraphs, the respondents were informed at the time of their appointment that their appointment was on consolidated pay, subject to pay enhancement by 10% every year initially for a period of one year at a time, subject to renewal on assessment/review after a period of three years. It was also indicated to the respondents that their cases may be considered for regularisation on assessment of their performance. Thus, it is not a case of appointment on consolidated pay or daily wages simplicitor. Albeit appointment was of temporary nature, however, that was subject to regular assessment and probable regularisation on completion of three years. Thus, the respondents are not entitled to regularisation on completion of three years automatically, without consideration of their performance. On assessment/review, if it is found that their performance is satisfactory, they are entitled to be granted time scale on regular basis.
28 We are not delving into other questions, viz., res judicata and also regularisation of ad hoc/daily wage employees, as the same are not relevant and necessary in the contextual background of the facts involved in these cases. Thus, we are not referring to and discussing all the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties on different issues, which are not germane for adjudication of the issue involved herein.
29 Resultantly, for the reasoning and analysis made hereinabove, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent that the respondents are entitled to consideration for grant of time scale on regular basis on the basis of performance assessment to be done on completion of three years and in the event, the performance of the respondents, is found satisfactory, they are entitled to regularisation on completion of three years, with all consequential monetary benefits. Costs made easy. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(S.K.A.J.) (M.V.J.) 30.06.2015 cad Index:Yes To 1 The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2 The Director of Town Panchayat Kuralagam Chennai 600 108 3 The Executive Officer Thiruneermalai Town Panchayat Kancheepuram District SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. and M. VENUGOPAL, J. cad common judgment in W.A. Nos.1289, 1410, 1411, 1537, 1557, 1558,1608, 1609 and 1736 of 2014 & 270, 279, 293, 300, 335, 365, 477, 492,514, 518, 598, 623, 629,652 to 654, 664, 677, 693, 696, 721, 768,778 and 779 of 2015 30.06.2015