Madras High Court
M.Padmavathy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 June, 2013
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 17.06.2013 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.Raja Writ Petition No.27035 of 2008 M.Padmavathy ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3. The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Singaravelan Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. ... Respondents. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.K.Raja For respondents : Mr.M.E.Raniselvam, Additional Govt. Pleader. O R D E R
The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms. No.27 AD & TW Department, dated 15.02.2006, and all consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.Ya2/979/2006, dated 07.07.2008, denying the regularization with regular scale of pay and arrears with effect from the date of initial appointment to the petitioner, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Scavenger with effect from 09.11.1982 and grant regular pay scale with effect from 09.11.1982 with all arrears and other attendant benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is given here-under:
As per proceedings, dated 15.07.1982, the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange Office for appointment to the post of Scavenger in the scale of pay of Rs.250 plus allowances and she was appointed so in the Government Hostel for College Students, Perambur, Chennai, as per subsequent proceedings dated 09.11.1982, along with one Mr.G.Narayanasamy, who was appointed as Cook for the same Hostel. Two other persons by name Tmt.J.Prakasammal and Tmt.Kuppabai were also appointed as Cooks. While so, when declaration of probation was ordered in respect of Mr.G.Narayanasamy, Tmt.J.Prakasammal and Tmt.Kuppabai, Cooks, on 11.11.1984, 02.03.1986 and 11.01.1989 respectively, and they were also brought into regular scale of pay with effect from their date of initial appointment, the service of the petitioner was not regularized and she was not given regular scale of pay on par with the above mentioned persons. By highlighting his grievance that while the aforesaid persons were given regular pay of scale in their respective posts from their date of initial appointment and, for no reason, she alone was singled out and denied the benefit to which she is legally entitled to, the petitioner made very many representations which evoked no response, however, strangely, the 1st respondent issued G.O. Ms. NO.27, AD & TW Department, dated 15.02.2006, followed by consequential orders, denying regularization with regular scale of pay and arrears even though similarly placed persons as aforementioned were given such benefits. In other words, the service of the petitioner was regularized only with effect from 01.04.1988 after completion of service along with 41 employees, thereby, she was not given arrears of pay and other attendant benefits as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, she has come up with the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made three-fold submissions.
Firstly, he submits that, when Mr.G.Narayanasamy, Cook and Tmt.J.Prakasammal, Cook, were granted regularization from the date of their initial appointment and consequently, they were given all service benefits including regular scale of pay from such date, denial of such benefit to the petitioner, who is appointed along with the said individuals, on the ground that she was a Scavenger, is a clear act of discrimination and the impugned proceedings flowing in such background will not have any sanctity in the eye of law.
Secondly, he submits that while the very same department regularized the services of 34 contingent employees with effect from the date of their initial appointment as per G.O. No.153, AD & TW Department, dated 03.09.1997, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner in fine tune with the aforesaid G.O. is again in breach of the equality clause.
Ultimately, he adds that the petitioner has put in about 24 long years of valuable service and because of the impugned G.O. passed by the first respondent, at the time of retirement, she would not be in a position to get the service benefits proportionate to the actual long period of service as would be drawn by other similarly placed persons like J.Narayanasamy and J.Prakasammal, who were appointed along with the petitioner.
So submitting, learned counsel pleaded that this is a deserving case for grant of the prayer sought for.
4. Learned Government Advocate, by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, submitted that the petitioner having joined the service of the respondents in the post of Scavenger, cannot claim benefits in terms of what was given to the Cooks - G.Narayanasamy, J.Prakasammal and Kuppabai for the reason that those three persons were appointed in the vacancies against Cooks that were brought into the time scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment as per Government Norms, whereas, in the case of the petitioner, she was appointed with the working duration per day for about three years, therefore, she cannot be treated on par with the Cooks who have to work from the morning till late night. However, the service of the petitioner was also regularized by the impugned G.O. and hence, she cannot be allowed to assail the said proceedings issued by the first respondent.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side.
6. At the first instance, it must be expressed here that this Court is not able to agree with the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader for more than one reason.
Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed along with two other persons/Cooks by name G.Narayanasamy and J.Prakasammal. After sometime, declaration of probation was ordered to G.Narayanasamy and J.Prakasammal on 11.11.1984 and 02.03.1986 respectively. In the case of another Cook by name Kuppabai, declaration of probation was ordered on 11.01.1989. Consequently, those three individuals were brought into regular scale of pay from their date of initial appointment, but, in the case of the petitioner, for the reason that she was appointed as Scavenger and that her work would get completed in few hours, the respondents refused to treat her case on par with that of Narayanasamy and Prakasammal and such discrimination and unfair treatment can never be accepted, for, the impugned order does not even whisper that she has to work only for two hours every day. Even otherwise, it cannot be lost sight of that when the service of the Cooks is related to food served in the Government Hostel, equally, the Scavenger is also required to clean-up the Hostel area so as to maintain a clean and litter-free environment.
7. Further, when the respondents/Department issued G.O. No.153, AD & TW Department, dated 03.09.1997, regularizing the services of 34 contingent employees with effect from their date of initial appointment along with monetary benefits like arrears of pay and allowances, it is very unfortunate that the petitioner is denied such benefits.
8. Also, the petitioner has put in more than 24 years of long service as Scavenger, cleaning up the entire Hostel. That being so, when it is accepted by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed through Employment Exchange by proceedings dated 15.07.1982 and that continuation of her service is required in the said Hostel, showing differential treatment to the petitioner/Scavenger and better treatment to the Cooks is absolutely impermissible in law. Therefore, this Court disagreeing with the impugned order, is inclined to quash the same.
9. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant regularization to the petitioner in the regular scale of pay with effect from the date of her initial appointment ie., 09.11.1982, with all monetary benefits including arrears due to her on such regularization, and, needless to mention, such exercise shall have to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.
17.06.2013.
Index : yes / no. Internet : yes / no. JI. To 1. The Secretary, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3. The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Singaravelan Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. T.Raja, J. WP No.27035 of 2008. 17.06.2013.