Madras High Court
C.Pandi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 1 September, 2020
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.09.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)Nos.10603, 10611, 10612, 10620, 10623, 10625, 10626,
10627, 10629, 10630 and 10634 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD).No.9362 of 2020
W.P(MD)No.10603 of 2020
C.Pandi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Backward Classes/Most Backward Classes/
Minorities and De-notified welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Most Backward Classes and
De-notified Welfare Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-05.
3.The Joint Director,
Kallar Reclamation,
Madurai. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in letter
No.2550/MWRU2/2020-1 dated 15.06.2020 and quash the same and
consequently direct the first respondent to regularize the petitioner's
1/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch
service as cook on completion of 5 years of service from the date of the
initial appointment in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.19/BC/MBC and
Minorities Welfare Department dated 07.03.2008 or on par with the other
similarly placed persons with all attendants benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sasikumar
( in all the writ petitions)
Respondents : Mr.M.Jeyakumar,
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
The issue raised in these writ petitions since are common and all the writ petitioners are similarly placed and seek for a similar relief, with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These petitioners were appointed as Cook in Kallar Reclamation department under the third respondent at various school run by the said department in between 1994 and 1998. Of course, they had been appointed with the consolidated pay of a sum of Rs.850/- per month. In that capacity, since they had been working for some years, it seem that they had approached the respondents to regularize their services, with a result, the Government, having considered the request, has come forward 2/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch to issue G.O.(Ms)No.85 Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department dated 20.09.2007. Under the said G.O.Ms.No.85, these petitioners, who had been working as cook on consolidated pay and other similarly placed persons, who are numbering about 420, have been brought under regular time scale of pay of Rs. 2550-3200. The said benefit of time scale of pay would come into effect from the date of issuance of Government Order, i.e., dated 20.09.2007. Accordingly, these petitioners service though initially was under
consolidated pay, subsequently, brought under the regular time scale of pay. When that being so, in the next year, i.e., in 2008, the Government has come forward to issue the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.19, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 07.03.2008, where, having considered the similar G.O., issued in respect of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, the Government has come forward to extend the benefit of regularising the service of these type of employees and had directed to regularise their services for those who completed five years of service prior to 21.01.1981, from 21.01.1981, and completed after the said date i.e., 21.01.1981, after completion of five years period from 1st April falls on 3/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch next year, such regularisation could be made. In order to appreciate the benefit extended under G.O.Ms.No.19, the following, which is the import of the G.O., are quoted hereunder:-
“(m) murhiz (epiy) vz;.220> MjpjpuhtplH kw;Wk; goq;FbapdH eyj;Jiw> ehs; 29.11.2001-d; gb Kd; Njjpapl;L tud;Kiwg;gLj;jp Mizapl;lthW ,j;Jiwapd; fPo;> gzpahw;Wk; ,e;j Mizapd; ,izg;G 1(a) ,y; Fwpg;gplg;gL;s;s 101 fhtyHfs; kw;Wk; VtyHfs;> ,izg;G 1(b) ,y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s 221 rikayHfs; ,izg;G 1(c) ,y; Fwpg;gplg;gLs;s 44 Xa;T ngw;w kuzkile;j fhtyHfs; kw;Wk; VtyHfs; ,izg;G 1(d) ,y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s 197 Xa;T ngw;w/kuzkile;j rikayHfs; Mf nkhj;jk; 553 gzpahsHfspd; gzpapid fPNo Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sthW Kd;Njjpapl;L gzptud;Kiwg;gLj;jyhk;.
I.21.01.1981-f;F Kd;dH 5 Mz;Lfs; gzpKbj;j rikayHfSf;F 21.01.1981 md;W. II.21.01.1981-f;Fg; gpd;dH 5 Mz;Lfs; gzp Kbj;jtHfspd; gzp> ve;j Njjpapy; 5 Mz;Lfs; gzp Kbf;fpd;wdNuh mjw;F mLj;J tUk; Mz;L Vg;uy; Kjy; NjjpapypUe;J. III.31.01.1982-f;F Kd; 5 Mz;Lfs; gzp Kbj;j fhtyH kw;Wk; VtyHfSf;F 31.03.1982 md;W IV.31.03.1982-f;Fg; gpd;dH 5 Mz;Lfs; gzp Kbj;jtHfSf;F 5 Mz;Lfs; Kbj;J mLj;J tUk;
Vg;uy; Kjy; NjjpapypUe;J. 4/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch (M) Kd;Njjpapl;L tud;Kiwg;gLj;jg;gLk; rikayH> fhtyH kw;Wk; VtyHfs; fUj;jpayhd (Notional) Cjpa epHzak; nra;a kl;LNk jFjpAilatHfs; MtH> gzg;gaidg; nghUj;jtiu Vw;fdNt mtHfsJ gzptud;Kiw nra;ag;gl;L gzg;gad; toq;fg;gl;l MizapypUe;J vt;tpj khw;wKk; ,Uf;fhJ.
mtHfSf;F epYitj;njhif VJk; toq;fg;glkhl;lhJ> Kd;Njjpapl;L tud; Kiwg;gLj;Jtjhy; fpilf;Fk; $Ljy; gzpf;fhyk; mtHfs; Xa;t+jpa gad;fs; ngw fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLk;.
3. In this context, these petitioners, who had been appointed initially on consolidated pay as stood between 1994 and 1998, have been brought under the time scale of pay and have been regularised by virtue of the aforesaid Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.85) only from the year 2007, hence they seems to have sought the extension of benefit of the import of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.19, whereby, they seek the benefit regularising their services strictly in accordance with the terms of G.O.Ms.No.19, whereby from 1st April of the next year from the date of completion of 5 years period after they joined in the service, they want regularisation. If such calculation is made under G.O.Ms.No.19, since these petitioners were appointed between 1994 and 1998 would have 5/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch completed 5 years from 1999 to 2003 and therefore, from the 1st April of the next year, corresponding to each of these petitioners, they would be entitled to get regularisation as the import of G.O.Ms.No.19 as referred to above.
4. When such a request was made by these petitioners individually to the respondents, especially, the first respondent, who, after considering the request of the petitioners, have passed individual rejection orders, dated 15.06.2020. Challenging the said rejection orders passed by the first respondent, dated 15.06.2020, these petitioners have filed this batch of writ petitions with the aforesaid prayer.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who would submit that, admittedly, these petitioners were appointed initially on consolidated pay between 1994 and 1998 and subsequently, they have been brought under the regular time scale of pay by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 20.09.2007, their regularisation also has been taken only from that date, however, the benefit extended to these kind of people, by the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 07.03.2008, has not been 6/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch taken into account, whereas, these petitioners since are similarly placed and they have completed 5 years of service between 1999-2003, therefore, they are entitled to get regularisation from 1st April falls on the next year after completion of 5 years. Since the said benefit has been sought for, which is rejected by the impugned orders, individually passed against each of the writ petitioners, therefore, such impugned orders passed by the first respondent are liable to be rejected and accordingly, the benefit liable to be given to the petitioners shall be directed to be given.
6. I have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, initially, the petitioners were appointed only as Cook on consolidated pay, subsequently, they were brought under the time scale of pay by G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 20.09.2007 and since then, they have been getting time scale of pay. At the time of bringing them under the time scale of pay, the G.O.Ms.No.19 was not available, subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.19 was issued, where, in the operative portion of the G.O.Ms.No.19 it has been specifically made that, from the date of regularisation, which was 7/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch given retrospectively, the beneficiaries are not entitled to get pay benefits as it would be considered only as a notional fixation and therefore, no arrears would be given them and from the date they got regularisation retrospectively, such period of service rendered by them would be taken into account only for pensionary benefits.
7. By relying upon a said import of G.O.Ms.No.19, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that, since the petitioners had been regularised from the year 2007 onwards, even prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.19, and since then they have been getting regular time scale of pay, they are entitled to calculate the period of their services rendered only from that date for the purpose of pensionable service. Therefore, from the date of appointment, the petitioners are not entitled to get any regularisation, therefore, further retrospective regularisation since the petitioners sought for, cannot be granted, therefore, the said aspect having been considered, the first respondent has rightly rejecting the plea, hence, the said orders requires no interference from this Court.
8/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch
8. I have considered the said submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The petitioners, admittedly, were appointed as cook on consolidated pay between 1994-1998 and there is no dispute on that fact. Subsequently, they have been brought under the time scale of pay only under G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 20.09.2007. Therefore, as per the said G.O., the petitioners are entitled to get the pay benefits of regular time scale of pay only from the date of issuance of G.O., The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.85, is quoted hereunder, for easy reference:-
“,r;R+o;epiyapy; 7 Mz;LfSf;F Nky; njhFg;g +jpaj;jpy; gzpahw;wp tUk; 420 rikayH gzpahsHfSf;F fhyKiw Cjpak; toq;fg;glhky; jw;NghJ Gjpjhf Jtq;fg;gl;Ls;s tpLjpfspd; gzpahsHfSf;F fhyKiw Cjpak; toq;fg;gLfpd;w epiyapy;> Vw;fdNt epakdk; nra;ag;gl;ltHfs; Fiwe;j CjpaKk; jw;NghJ epakdk; nra;ag;gl;ltHfs; mjpf CjpaKk; Mf XNu gzpapid nra;Ak; egHfSf;F ntt;NtW CjpaKk; vd;w Vw;w jho;tpid jtpHg;gJ kpf mtrpakhfpwJ.
8.vdNt> ,jid Ma;T nra;j muR mjid Vw;W gpw;gLj;jg;gl;NlhH> kpfg;gpw;gLj;jg;gl;NlhH kw;Wk;
rPHkugpdH ey tpLjpfspy; gzpGhpAk; &.850/-
9/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch njhFg;g+jpak; ngw;W tUk; rikayH/rikay;
cjtpahsHfs; gad;ngWk; tifapy; jw;nghOJ njhFg;g+jpaj;jpy; gzpahw;wptUk; 420 gzpahsHfis &. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 vd;w Cjpa Vw;w tpfpjj;jpy; nfhz;Lte;J MizapLfpwJ. ,f;fhyKiw Cjpak;
murhiz ntspaplg;gLk; ehspypUe;J mKYf;F tUk;.
10. Insofar as the said import of G.O.Ms.No.85 is concerned, by which, these petitioners were brought under the time scale of pay, there could be no much quarrel, as that position also has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, according to him, would be entitled to get time scale of pay only from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 20.09.2007. The only controversy, now arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners would be entitled to get regularisation from the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.85 i.e., on 20.09.2007 or from the 1st April falls on the next year to completion of 5 years, on consolidated pay by each of the respondents.
11. This Court feels that the aforesaid controversy is in very narrow campus, as the same can very well resolve by taking into account the import of G.O.Ms.No.19. The relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.19 10/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch has already been extracted, where four categories have been given, those who are joined and completed 5 years on or before 21.01.1981 is the first category. Those, who are joined and completed 5 years after 21.01.1981 is the second category. Like that, those, who completed 5 years period on or before 31.01.9182 is the third category and those, who are completed 5 years of service after 31.03.1982 is the fourth category.
12. All these petitioners, admittedly, since have joined between 1994 and 1998, they would come or fall under only fourth category, where, they could have completed the 5 years of service from the date of their appointment only between 1999-2003.
13. For instance, if one of the petitioner completes 5 years service in 1999, he would be eligible to get regularisation from the 1st April falls on the next year i.e., in the year 2000.
14. For instance, the first petitioner i.e., the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10603 one C.Pandi has been appointed by order dated. 30.06.1995. Therefore, he could have completed 5 years service in 1999. 11/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch Therefore, the said petitioner would be entitled to get regularisation from the 1st of next year i.e., from the first April 2000.
15. Like that, each of the petitioners, in this batch of cases, were appointed between 1994 and 1998 and they would have completed 5 years service between 1999-2003, therefore, from the 1st April falls on the next year, after completion of 5 years, respectively, by each of the petitioners, those petitioners, would be entitled to get regularisation if strictly construed the import of G.O.Ms.No.19.
16. When that being the position, the grievance now projected by the petitioners which have already been projected before the respondents is that, though they have been regularised from 20.09.2007, they are entitled to get regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.19, only for the purpose of pensionable benefits, such a benefit should have been extended by giving a modified order, or revised order to G.O.Ms.No.85 or consequential order pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.85 and G.O.Ms.No.19 referred to above.
12/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch
17. The said request made by the petitioners, individually, having been turned down by the orders, which are impugned herein, dated 15.06.2020, where, the first respondent has stated the following:-
“I am to invite attention to the reference cited and to state that your representation dated 16.12.2019 requesting retrospective regularisation have been examined in detail considering the grounds that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay and subsequently regularised from the date of issue of order and they are not entitled for retrospective regularization as ordered in G.O.(Ms)No.19, Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department, dated 07.03.2008.
2.Hence your request is rejected.”
18. This Court feels that the impugned orders would not be sustained in view of the import of G.O.Ms.No.19 as discussed above. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders are unsustainable and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
19. Resultantly, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:-
“that the respective impugned orders, dated 13/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch 15.06.2020 passed by the first respondent, in each of the case, are hereby quashed. All these matters are remitted back to the respondents, especially, the first respondent, for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, the first respondent shall take into account Para-4(m)(M) of G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 07.03.2008 and accordingly, pass necessary orders extending the benefit provided under the said G.O., for regularisation of the service of the petitioners for notional purpose from 1st April of the next year falls after completion of 5 years service, respectively, for each of the petitioners, from the date of their appointment. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents, especially, the first respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
20. With these directions, all these writ petitions are ordered to the term as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.09.2020
Index : Yes
14/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch
Internet : Yes
am
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government Backward Classes/Most Backward Classes/ Minorities and De-notified welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Most Backward Classes and De-notified Welfare Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-05.
3.The Joint Director, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai.
R.SURESH KUMAR ,J.
am W.P.(MD)Nos.10603, 10611, 10612, 15/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10603 of 2020 etc., batch 10620, 10623, 10625, 10626, 10627, 10629, 10630 and 10634 of 2020 01.09.2020 16/16 http://www.judis.nic.in