Madras High Court
P.Govindasamy vs The Secretary on 26 October, 2016
Author: M.Govindaraj
Bench: M.Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 06.10.2016
Pronounced on : 26.10.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
Writ Petition No.29881 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014 and WMP.No.18301 of 2016
P.Govindasamy .. Petitioner
..vs..
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Agricultural Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner-cum-Director of
Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Mannarpuram, Trichy.
4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Iruppuvaladi, Lalgudi,
Trichy District-621 218. .. Respondents
Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent in connection with Office Memo No.A5/11734/2010, dated 23.07.2014 and on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with Letter No.Au Pa 2/43804/06 dated 04.08.2014 and quash the same and consequently, grant all consequential monetary benefits including arrears on par with juniors as per G.O. (P) No.85 Agri Department, dated 02.03.1999.
For Petitioner : Ms.T.Aananthi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed for consequential monetary benefits on par with the juniors of the Writ Petitioner on the basis of G.O.(Ms.) No.85, Agriculture Department, dated 02.03.1999.
2. The Writ Petitioner was engaged as Night Watchman-cum-Mazdoor on 01.05.1981. His case was recommended for regularisation by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent from 02.09.1988 onwards. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.(Ms) No.85, Agriculture Department, dated 02.03.1999, had ordered for sanction of 100 posts of watchman and by G.O.No.22, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, has given a direction to the departments to regularise the daily wage employees, who are in service for more than 10 years. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.187, Agriculture Department, dated 19.05.2008, the Government regularised the daily rated watchmen by relaxing age, method of recruitment and communal rotation. By G.O.Ms.No.187, the 100 posts sanctioned were regularised, vide G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 02.03.1999.
3. The Writ Petitioner had joined in the year 1981 and was recommended for regularisation against the sanctioned post from the year 1988. But, was not regularised whereas many of his juniors were regularised in service. Aggrieved by the non-regularisation, the Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.31347/2013. This Court by its order dated 03.06.2014 has directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the proposal submitted by the 4th respondent for regularisation of the services of the writ petitioner in the light of the Government Orders and the Policy decision to be taken by the Government. The 2nd respondent vide his Letter No.AVB2/43804/2006 dated 04.08.2014 has rejected the request of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the Writ Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.
4. A counter affidavit came to be filed by the 2nd respondent controverting the averments made in the Writ Petition. The essence of the counter is that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806, the claim of the writ petitioner is not sustainable and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
5. Heard both sides and I have also perused the records carefully.
6. It is seen from the records that the recommendation of the 4th respondent in No.A.6352/88 dated 30.05.1989 that the writ petitioner had registered himself in employment exchange vide Registration No.3409/4.3.1976 and sanction has been accorded for engaging a Mazdoor to Parasite Culture Centre, Lalgudi and to regularise the services of the writ petitioner. This recommendation was followed by another proposal dated 08.06.1989. The reason adduced for the proposal was that nobody was willing to take up a job in view of the ailments caused during employment.
7. The 2nd respondent has called for certain clarifications from the 4th respondent as to whether the post of Mazdoor was sanctioned to the Centre under the control of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent in his letter No.A6952/89 dated 22.02.1990 has replied that one post of Assistant Agricultural Officer and one post of Mazdoor was sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.1392, Agriculture Department, dated 06.06.1981. Further, on 24.09.1990, the 4th respondent has requested for sanction of Mazdoor post which was available till 21.06.1990 to the Centre again. From the above communication, it is seen that a post of Mazdoor was in existence and the writ petitioner was engaged against that post.
8. While so, by G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 02.03.1999, 100 temporary posts were sanctioned and directed to be filled up on the basis of seniority from among daily rated employees. A list of Daily Rated Employees was prepared and the writ petitioner was found at Sl.No.1 in the list. Again in Proceedings No.AVP2/51612/99, dated 02.07.1999, orders were issued sanctioning 100 posts of temporary watchman to the Extension Centres of Agriculture Department. In that list also, the writ petitioner was arrayed at Sl.No.1. But, thereafter, while actual orders were issued, the writ petitioner was not given temporary status.
9. The 3rd respondent in his Proceedings No.A5-5974-2005 dated 01.07.2006 has recommended the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.22, P&AR Department, dated 28.02.2006. In the said Government Order, the Government has taken a decision that the services of the daily wages employees working in all Government Departments who have rendered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularised by appointing them in the time scale of pay of the post in accordance with the service conditions prescribed for the post concerned, subject to their being otherwise qualified for the post.
10. Pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 22.02.2006, various litigations were raised before the State Administrative Tribunal as well as before the High Court. The Tribunal/High Court had directed to regularise the services of the daily wage employees. This was confirmed by the Division Bench of this High Court and the Special Leave Petition filed by the High Court was also dismissed. Therefore, by various Government Orders, the services of the daily rated employees were regularised and benefits were given. However, the Government passed another Government Order that the financial benefits shall be disbursed from the date of the order regularising the daily wage employees and not from their initial engagement. However, the writ petitioner was not considered for regularisation and in the meanwhile, he attained the age of superannuation.
11. It is clear from the facts detailed above that the writ petitioner was engaged w.e.f. 01.05.1981 in extraordinary circumstances where nobody was willing to take up the work. The recommendations of the 4th respondent will clearly show that the writ petitioner was well experienced and devoted to the duties. It is also seen that the writ petitioner had registered himself in the Employment Exchange and engaged against the sanctioned vacancy of Mazdoor. Therefore, it could be seen that there is little irregularity in the method of engagement, but, it is not an illegal engagement, but out of necessity of the department. The Government, considering the plight of several watchman-cum-Mazdoor had relaxed the rules in favour of those who have not engaged through Employment Exchange and in some cases, age relaxation was also given. Therefore, the petitioner was fully eligible for holding the post of Mazdoor on the date of his engagement and therefore, he cannot be thrown out without any benefit. It is also important to note that the writ petitioner had not continued in the post on the basis of any orders nor engaged illegally.
12. In other words, the engagement of the writ petitioner is not illegal, but, with curable defects attributable to the methodology in engagement. Many of his juniors were regularised in service and the Government had also taken a policy decision to regularise those who have continued for 10 years and more. Unfortunately, the writ petitioner, even after putting 31 years of service could not see the light of the day for his fruitful service.
13. Therefore, it is, but, fair to direct the respondents to consider the services rendered by the writ petitioner on notional basis and to issue orders awarding appropriate terminal benefits to the writ petitioner.
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
tsi
14. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
26.10.2016 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No tsi To
1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Agricultural Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner-cum-Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Mannarpuram, Trichy.
4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Iruppuvaladi, Lalgudi, Trichy District-621 218.
Writ Petition No.29881 of 2014 http://www.judis.nic.in