Madras High Court
S. Ranganathan vs The Director Of Public Health And on 15 October, 2009
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.10.2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.39005 of 2005
1. S. Ranganathan
2. N. Kumaran
3. C. Rangaraj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Director of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine,
Chennai 6.
2. The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Uthagamandalam ... Respondents
PRAYER: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorified Mandamus, by way of transfer of O.A.No.3724 of 2003 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in Pro.Na.Ka. No.3456/Su.6/2002-1 and Pro.Na.Ka.No.3456/Su.6/2002 and Pro.Na.Ka. No.3456/Su.6/2002-3 and Pro.Na.Ka.No.3456/Su.6/2002 and Pro.Na.Ka.No.3456/Su.6/2002-5 and Pro.Na.Ka.No.3456/Su.6/2002 dated 21.10.2003, issued to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Applicants herein respectively to quash the same and issue directions to the Respondents to continue to draw the existing pay and allowances.
For Petitioner : Mr.M. Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.P. Muthukumar Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioners were appointed as Mazdoors in National Eradication Programme between 1968 1971 in the Public Health Department. Later, the Mazdoors were re-designated as Field Workers. They were on consolidated pay.
2. The Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.2656, Health and Family Planning Department, dated 23.10.1973, and directed that Mazdoors and laboratory Boys, appointed on consolidated pay could be brought to regular scale of pay, on completion of 5 years of service. Thereafter, the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.496, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 09.10.1997, directing retrospective regularisation of services of 258 Mazdoors and 15 laboratory Boys. However, while ordering retrospective regularisation, it was stated by the Government that the monetary benefits could be paid from 29.07.1987.
3. Based on the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.496, the first respondent issued a proceeding dated 16.07.1998 to all the subordinate officials, to implement G.O.Ms.No.496. Based on the direction issued by the first respondent, the second respondent passed an order in February 1999, granting retrospective regularisation to the petitioners and monetary benefits from 29.07.1987.
4. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.10.2003, withdrawing the pay and also the increments given to the petitioners, on the ground of audit objection.
5. The petitioners filed Original Application in O.A.No.3724 of 2003 (W.P.No.39005 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid order dated 21.10.2003 of the second respondent.
6. While ordering notice in the Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim stay of the impugned order. In view of the interim stay, the impugned order was not given effect to.
7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. I have perused the entire materials, including reply affidavit filed by the respondents.
8. The impugned order has to be set aside on the ground of non- compliance of principles of nature justice. In fact, the Tribunal, while granting interim stay, passed a detailed order, which is extracted here under.
" This application is filed by Thiru S. Ranganathan and two others, challenging the validity of the order of recovery, dated 21.10.2003. The applicants were initially appointed on daily wages as Field Assistants in the Malaria Eradication Campaign. Subsequently, they have been regularised and brought under time scale of pay. They have been brought under time scale of pay even as early as 1973 as per a G.O. Subsequently, regularisation also has been done with effect from the date of said G.O. Subsequently the applicants and other similarly placed persons made representation and got an order from the Government in the year 1999 granting them regularisation from their initial appointment in 1968, 1970s' and 1971. Now, in 2003 , the regularisation G.Os. and the benefits given to them are sought to be taken away and recovery is sought to be made of the benefits already given to them. A copy of the impugned order is found in page 15 of the type set of papers and a reading of the same would show. That it is based on some audit remarks or objections. No reasons are given and the applicants were not heard before passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, Interim Stay of the impugned orders. Issue Notice returnable by eight weeks."
9. However, there was a later development and the Government issued another order in G.O.D.No.359, Health and Family Welfare (AB1)Department, dated 14.03.2003, granting retrospective regularisation to Office Assistants, like that of the petitioners and monetary benefits, from 29.07.1987. In fact, the reply affidavit states that the first respondent sent proposals to the Government and the matter is awaiting for the orders from the Government. The Mazdoors, like the petitioners, approached the Tribunal, claiming retrospective regularisation based on G.O.Ms.No. 496, and brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, submitted a proposal to the Government, regarding retrospective regularisation.
10. In these circumstances, the Tribunal directed the Government to pass orders. The Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.359 Health and Family Welfare (AB1) Department, dated 14.03.2007, granting retrospective regularisation to the Mazdoors, who were appointed like that of the petitioners, while granting retrospective regularisation, monetary benefits were given by the Government from 29.07.1987. Since the petitioners are similarly situated, they are also entitled to some benefit as given in G.O. No. 359 as referred above. In fact, the first respondent passed the order dated 16.07.1998 rightly granting retrospective regularisation and the monetary benefits with effect from 29.07.1987. The second respondent also correctly passed order in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 16.07.1998 of the first respondent. Hence the audit objection committed mistake and the second respondent passed impugned order, pursuant to the audit objection. Now the matter is settled by the Government in the G.O.No.359, and retrospective regularisation was granted with monetary benefit from 29.07.1987 to persons, who are similarly situated, like the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
sms To
1. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai 6.
2. The Deputy Director of Health Services, Uthagamandalam