Madras High Court
C.Xavier vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 7 December, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Writ Petition No.30374 of 2003 1. C.Xavier S/o.Chinnappan 2. D.Shibu S/o.Devanesan .... Petitioners versus 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Local Administration and Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector Kanyakumari District Nagercoil. 3. The Commissioner Melpuram Panchayat Union Pacode Post, Kanyakumari District. 4. The President, Devicode Village Panchayat, Melpalai Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. .... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent issued in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.A10/237/01, dated 21.03.2003 and the consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 17.10.2003, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners with time scale of pay from 1.06.1998 with all monetary benefits after adjusting the daily rated wages already paid. For Petitioners : Mrs.P.Mahalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate O R D E R
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent, issued in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A10/237/01 dated 21.03.2003 and the consequential order of the fourth respondent dated 17.10.2003 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners with time scale of pay from 01.06.1998 with monetary benefits after adjusting the daily rated wages already paid.
2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-
2.1. The first petitioner is having Educational qualification of SSLC and ITI and he had registered his name with the said qualification in the Employment Exchange. The first petitioner had been working as Plumbing Helper in a private concern for some time between 20.03.1994 and 19.03.1996. Thereafter, the first petitioner had been appointed by the fourth respondent at their Panchayat, as Water supply Assistant / Attender, by an order of appointment dated 01.10.1997. From the said date of appointment onwards, the first petitioner has been continuously working at the fourth respondent Panchayat.
2.2. The second petitioner is having Educational qualification of SSLC and he also registered his name in the Employment Exchange. The second petitioner was also working as Plumbing Helper in a private concern for some time between 15.04.1991 to 20.05.1992. Subsequently, the second petitioner was appointed as Water supply Assistant / Attender in the fourth respondent Panchayat from 01.12.1997 and he has been working at the fourth respondent Panchayat, thereafter.
2.3. The further case of the petitioners is that, at the time of making appointment, even in the appointment order itself, it has been specifically mentioned that, initially for a period of six months the appointment will be treated as temporary one and thereafter, it would be made permanent.
2.4. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the daily rated salary was fixed as Rs.85/- as per the proceedings dated 14.08.2000, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.97/- as per the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.07.2001.
2.5. Though the daily rated wage was fixed for the persons like the petitioners, the fourth respondent instead of paying the daily rated wages, had paid only a consolidated pay of Rs.400/- per month. Therefore, against such payment of consolidated pay as well as seeking for permanent absorption in the time scale of pay, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing WP.No.750 of 2001 with a prayer of Mandamus. This Court, by an order dated 20.01.2003, directed the respondents therein / fourth respondent herein to consider the request of the petitioners, within a time frame of six months and to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.
2.6 In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioners had been paid the daily rated wages, however, the arrears for the year 2000 - 2003 had not been paid.
2.7 Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, in the said writ petition referred to above, the third respondent passed an order dated 21.03.2003, stating that, before making appointment to the petitioners, proper sanction was not obtained by the fourth respondent from the Collector concerned and without having obtained the sanction from the Collector, the fourth respondent Panchayat ought not to have appointed the petitioners, therefore, their request for absorption in the time scale of pay cannot be considered.
2.8. Pursuant to the said order passed by the third respondent, the fourth respondent passed a consequential order on 17.10.2003, whereby, it has been stated that, the petitioners cannot be granted daily rated wages, as they are entitled to get a consolidated pay of a sum of Rs.400/- per month as per the Government Order, which was in vogue, therefore, the fourth respondent in the said order dated 17.10.2003, rejected the request of the petitioners for absorption as well as time scale of pay and also directed the petitioners, to re-pay the excess amount paid to them, by calculating the daily rated wages instead of consolidated pay.
2.9. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the third respondent dated 21.03.2003 and the fourth respondent dated 17.10.2003, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, wherein, they have stated that, the post like waterman is to be governed only under Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.119 RD E5 Department dated 10.05.2000. As per the said Government Order, these employees shall not be treated as full time employees, as their post of waterman is only a part time employment and therefore, for the said post, they would be entitled to claim only consolidated pay, which was already fixed as Rs.400/- per month.
4. The counter affidavit would further state that, even before making appointment of these petitioners as waterman, at the fourth respondent Panchayat, the Panchayat did not get any provisional sanction or approval or permission from the Collector, without which, the appointments ought not to have been made by the fourth respondent. Therefore, counter proceeds to say that, these appointments cannot be considered to be a lawful appointment and therefore, based on such unlawful appointment, the petitioners cannot claim any right, that too, the claim of the time scale of pay with absorption from the date of appointment.
5. Mrs.P.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the decisions of this Court. In support of her contention, the learned counsel would rely upon the following judgements: (1) WP.Nos.35166, 37060 & 37900 of 2002, (A.Ambrose Vs. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District) (2) WA.Nos.909 to 911 of 2004, (The District Collector, Kanyakumari District Vs. A.Ambrose and others).
6. By relying upon the said Judgements, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, similarly appointed persons at the very same District, at the respective village Panchayat, who had been denied the absorption as well as time scale of pay, had approached this Court by filing the writ petitions which were considered and decided by the learned Judge of this Court in the first judgement referred to above. In this regard the learned counsel relied upon the following passages in the order of the learned Single Judge which reads thus:
"The petitioners, alleging that they are working as full-time employees under the third respondent-panchayat from morning to evening; but the respondents propose to pay a sum of Rs.400/- as consolidated payment to them, applying G.O.Ms.No.119, Rural Development (E.5) Department dated 10.05.2000, holding that the petitioners are not entitled for daily wage at Rs.97/- per day, as orally intimated by the third respondent, seek the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to pay the daily wages continuously to the petitioner fixed by the first respondent-District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, from time to time.
........
In view of the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners are working from 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., and applying the decision of this Court in C.Jebakumar V. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and 2 others, dated 02.08.2002 made in W.P.No.10437 of 2002, holding that G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 10.05.2000 squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the petitioners also, I am obliged to allow these writ petitions as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.56839 of 2002 is closed."
7. As against the said order of the learned Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the official respondents preferred appeals in WA.No.909 to 911 of 2004, as referred to above. In the said Writ Appeals, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2004, has held as follows:
"These writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge in a matter relating to payment of wages in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.119, Rural Development (E.5) Department dated 10.05.2000. The contention is that the G.O. is not applicable to part-time employees. But the same was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench in W.A.No.2413/2003 by judgment dated 17.02.2004. Similar contention has been rejected by the Division Bench and it is not disputed that the said judgment had become final. Basing on the same these writ appeals are dismissed. Consequently WAMP Nos.1678 to 1682 of 2004 are also dismissed."
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, stated that, the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court, firstly by the learned Single Judge and thereafter, by the Division Bench and also in the earlier writ petition in the matter of C.Jebakumar Vs District Collector, Kanyakumari District, by an order dated 02.08.2002 made in WP.No.10437 of 2002, which was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ultimately, the order passed by this Court was confirmed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the issue is not only decided by this Court, but also reached its finality, by confirming the same by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned Judgement. In view of the said facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, these petitioners, who are exactly like that of the petitioners, in that writ petitions referred to above, would be entitled to claim the benefits of the time scale of pay with absorption, from the date of their appointment, as their appointment is not a part time employment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, the impugned orders passed by the third respondent as well as the fourth respondent are liable to be interfered with.
9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that, as has been pointed out in the order impugned passed by the third respondent, the very appointment itself was illegal, because before making the said appointment, the fourth respondent ought not to have independently acted, without getting any approval or concurrence from the District Collector. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that, as per the provisions under Section 101(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, the Panchayat does not have power to appoint these type of employees directly ,without the concurrence of the District Collector concerned. When that being the position, the learned Government Advocate would also submit that, apart from the statutory provisions of the Panchayat Act, as per the Government Order in G.O.(1D) 418 R.D E5 Department dated 14.08.2000, the said position has been emphasised that only the consolidated payment to the water supply attenders appointed in Kanyakumari District were permitted and no full time post has been sanctioned either by the Government or the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayats who is empowered to sanction or create new posts, as per Section 101(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. These appointments made to the petitioners is not sanctioned either by the Government or the District Collector and therefore, when such appointments were made directly against the provisions of the Statute as well as the Government Order, in this regard, no right can be accrued for these petitioners to claim the right of absorption from the date of their appointment with time scale of pay.
10. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that, when the very appointment itself is not justifiable and lawful, as has been quoted above, by virtue of the provisions of the Act, as well as the Government Order, their claim for absorption, which has been rightly rejected by the respondents, cannot be found fault with, as there is no infirmity found in these orders. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that, if at all the petitioners sought to be engaged by the fourth respondent for the purpose of watering, based on the appointment, they may be treated only as part time employees, for whom, only consolidated pay can be sanctioned from the Panchayat fund, as per the Government Order No.119 referred to above. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the impugned orders are sustainable and requires no interference by this Court.
11. The learned Government Advocate would also refer to Paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents which is extracted hereunder.
"11. As regards ground (e) it is submitted that it is once again reiterated that no full time post is sanctioned to any of the Village Panchayats in Kanniyakumari District as also in any of the Panchayats in the State. All the Water Supply Attenders Over Head Tank Operators are doing same kind of work is operating switches and valves to supply water from Over Head Tanks and they are all part time employees. G.O.Ms.No.119 R.D. (E5) Dept.is applicable to all Water Supply Attenders and Over Head Tank Operators. It is once again stated that final verdict in W.A.2413/03 against W.P.10437/02 is pending. On these terms the petition is liable for dismissal."
12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and also considered the materials filed before this Court.
13. These two writ petitioners had been appointed by the fourth respondent as waterman, during December 1997. The first petitioner was appointed on 01.12.1997 and the second petitioner was also appointed on 01.12.1997. The relevant portion of the respective appointment orders are re-produced hereunder for better appreciation:
"jpU/nrtpah;. j-bg/rpd;dg;gd; uh$; epth!; kh';fhiy nky;ghiy m";ry; vd;gth; njtpnfhL Cuhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l FoePh; jpl;l';fspy; fhypahf cs;s FoePh; cldhs; gzpaplj;jpy; epakdk; bra;a tpz;zg;gpj;Js;sjpd; mog;gilapy; njtpnfhL Cuhl;rp jPh;khd vz;/2. ehs; 28/11/97?d; go kr;rf;nfhzk; FoePh; jpl;lj;jpy; FoePh; cldhs; Mf epakdk; bra;aj; jPh;khzpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. jpU/rp/nrtpah;. j-bg/rpd;dg;gd;. uh$; epth!;. kh';fhiy nky;ghiy m";ry; vd;gtiu kr;rf;nfhzk; FoePh; jpl;lj;jpd; FoePh; cldhs; Mf epakdk; bra;J cj;jut[ tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ ,t;t[j;jutpd; mog;gilapy; ,th; gzpapy; nrUk; ehs; Kjy; 6 khj fhyk; jw;fhypfk; Mft[k; mjw;Fg;gpd; epue;jug;gLj;j ToaJk; MFk;/ ,tUf;F Cjpa tpjprhuhg;go Cuhl;rp epjpapypUe;J Cjpak; tH';fg;gLk;/ khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; eph;zapj;Js;s re;ij epuf;fpd;go Cuhl;rp epjpapypUe;J Cjpak; tH';fg;gLk;/ ,t;thiz 1/12/1997 Kjy; mKYf;F tUk;/"
"jpU/o/cpg[/ j-bg/ njtndrd; nwhlUF tPL. vd;gth; njtpf;nfhL Cuhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l FoePh;; jpl;l';fspy; fhypahf cs;s FoePh; cldhs; gzpaplj;jpy; epakdk; bra;a tpz;zg;gpj;Js;sjpd; mog;gilapy; njtpnfhL Cuhl;rp jPh;khd vz;/3. ehs; 28/11/97?d; go bfhl;lwf;;nfhzk; FoePh; jpl;lj;jpy; FoePh; cldhs; Mf epakdk; bra;aj; jPh;khzpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. jpU/o/cpg[/ j-bg/ njtndrd; nwhlUF tPL. nfhyo. brWty;Yh; m";ry; vd;gtiu bfhl;lwf;;nfhzk; FoePh; jpl;lj;jpd; FoePh; cldhs; Mf epakdk; bra;J cj;jut[ tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ ,t;t[j;jutpd; mog;gilapy; ,th; gzpapy; nrUk; ehs; Kjy; 6 khj fhyk; jw;fhypfk; Mft[k; mjw;Fg;gpd; epue;jug;gLj;j ToaJk; Mfk;/ ,tUf;F Cjpa tpjprhuhg;go Cuhl;rp epjpapypUe;J Cjpak; tH';fg;gLk;/ khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; eph;zapj;Js;s re;ij epuf;fpd;go Cuhl;rp epjpapypUe;J Cjpak; tH';fg;gLk;/ ,t;thiz 1/12/1997 Kj;y mKYf;F tUk;/"
14. The fourth respondent in the very appointment orders given to these petitioners have referred the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.226 Rural Development C1 Department dated 15.10.1996. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.226 R & D Department dated 15.10.1996 is extracted hereunder:
"Cuhl;rp njh;jy;fSf;F gpd;dh;. Cuhl;rp eph;thfj;jpd; K:d;W mLf;Ffshfpa Cuhl;rp. Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; kw;Wk; khtl;l Cuhl;rp bray;gl Jt';Fk;/ ,itfs; xt;bthd;Wk; jdpj; jdpna ,a';Fk; jd;ika[ilait/ ,t;t{uhl;rp mikg;g[fSf;F mspf;fg;gl ntz;oa flikfs; kw;Wk; bghWg;g[fisg; gw;wp muR MH;e;J ghprPypj;jJ/ 1994?M;k Mz;L Cuhl;rpfs; rl;lj;jpy;. Cuhl;rp. Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; kw;Wk; khtl;;;l Cuhl;rpapd; flikfs; kw;Wk; bghWg;g[fs; gw;wp Vw;fdnt tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;sd/ MapDk; ,t;tikg;g[fs; rpwe;j Kiwapy; bray;gl ntz;Lbkd;W fUjp Cuhl;rpfs;. Cuhl;rp xd;wpa';fs;. kw;Wk; khtl;;l Cuhl;rpfshy; epiwntw;wg;gl ntz;oa flikfs; kw;Wk; bghWg;g[fisa[k; gpd;tUkhW vd muR MizapLfpwJ/"
m) Cuhl;rp :-
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Cuff; FoePh; tpepnahfk;/
15. According to the said G.O.Ms.No.226, in order to make the local self Government, especially the Rural Panchayat / Union to serve the rural people in a better way to fulfil their aspirations, the Government had entrusted certain works and powers to local bodies such as Village Panchayat as well as District Panchayat. Insofar as the Village Panchayat is concerned, number of rural works have been entrusted to them, among which, the distribution of water to the rural area is one of the prime function entrusted to the Panchayat.
16. Since the water supply is the prime function, as it is essential to the rural public, the Panchayat must bestow special care in the management of water supply to the rural people. It is quite common that in the rural areas, there is no provision for getting protected water for drinking and other purposes, unless it is made available to them by providing proper water supply schemes. That is the reason why, Government spent enormous money for the scheme of supplying water to the rural areas, where the bore wells were put up from which water is being tapped by pump sets and after storing it in the over headed tank, the water is being distributed to the rural people by the concerned Village Panchayat or group of Panchayats.
17. In order to supervise these job of water supply to the rural people, who suffer in life for water and to store water in tanks etc., the full time employment is required. Only in that context, these petitioners had been appointment by the fourth respondent Village Panchayat, as watermen to do number of jobs as full time employment. In this regard, the proceedings of the fourth respondent Panchayat dated 10.10.2002, entrusting the works to these petitioners is worthy to be noted here. The said proceedings is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
"njtpnfhL Cuhl;rp jiythpd; bray;Kiw Mizfs;
bghUs;:? gzpaikg;g[ ? njtpnfhL Cuhl;rp FoePh; tpdpnahfk; - gzp xJf;fPL kw;Wk; tiuKiwgLj;Jjy; bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it:? nj/C/jP/f-24-97 ehs; 1?12?1997 ghh;itapy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epakd cj;jut[go jpU/rp/nrtpah; kw;Wk; o/cpg[/ Mfpa FoePh; cldhl;fs; fPH; Fwpg;gpLk; ntiyfs; jpdt[k; bra;J Kof;f ,jdhy; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 1/ c';fSf;F xJf;fg;gl;Ls;s FoePh; jpl;l';fis jpdKk; fhiy 6/30 kzpf;F ,af;f ntz;Lk;/ 2/ FoePh; rPuhf fpuhk';fSf;F brd;wilfpwjh vd;gij fz;fhzpj;J rPuikf;f ntz;Lk;/ 3/ njtpnfhL Cuhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l tPl;L FoePh; ,izg;g[fspd; kPl;lh; hPo'; vLf;f ntz;Lk;/ 4/ tPLfSf;Fhpa FoePh; thp jtwhky; tNy; bra;a ntz;Lk;/ 5/ fhiy 6/30 kzpapypUe;J khiy 5/00 kzp tiu jpdt[k; ntiy bra;a ntz;Lk;/ nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l gzpfs; njtpnfhL Cuhl;rpapd; FoePh; cldhl;fs; jpU/rp/nrtpah;. jpU/o/cpg[ MfpnahUf;F ,jd; K:yk; xJf;fg;gLfpwJ/ bgWeh;fs;
1/ jpU/rp/nrtpah;
(nj/C/FoePh; cldhs;) 2/ jpU/o/cpg[ (nj/C/FoePh; cldhs;)
18. On a perusal of the aforesaid proceedings issued by the fourth respondent, it is clear that the petitioners had been directed to work from 6.30 a.m. onwards till 5.00 p.m. in the evening hours. Therefore, their working hours is 10 hours 30 minutes per day. Though, normally the working hours for the full time employees is 8 hours, these petitioners had been directed to work for 10 hours and 30 minutes and a number of jobs had been entrusted to them, as enumerated above in the said proceedings dated 10.10.2002 and in order to fulfil those jobs entrusted to them, since they had to work for 10.30 hours, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as a part time job, as claimed by the respondents. When the very fourth respondent itself has entrusted the job nature of the petitioners and also the time of the work, which is 10.30 hours per day, the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that, the job of the petitioners are only part time job and they are entitled to get consolidated pay and they are not entitled for absorption, as a permanent employees with time scale of pay, is liable to be rejected.
19. Moreover, the very same issue had triggered similarly placed persons to approach this Court. Initially the learned Judge of this Court in the judgement cited supra in A.Ambrose case, has held that the job of a full time employment cannot be considered, to be a part time job and therefore, they are entitled to get absorption as full time employees with time scale of pay. Moreover, the learned Government Advocate by relying upon Paragraph No.11 of the Counter Affidavit had submitted that, the issue is ending in WA.No.2413 of 2003 against the order passed in WP.No.10437 of 2002 and therefore, based on which, the petitioners can only be construed as part time employees under G.O.Ms.119 RD E5 Department. However, the fact remains that, though initially intra Court appeal was filed by the official respondents and the same was pending at the time of filing of this writ petition, subsequently, the said Writ Appeal was dismissed and it is submitted firmly by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, as against the order of dismissal passed by this Court, the official respondents carried the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where also they faced the same fate and thereby, the issue raised in this regard has reached its finality. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate that, the issue is yet to be decided, also has no legs to stand and accordingly, it is rejected.
20. The further argument advanced by the learned Government Advocate that, in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act as well as the Government Order to that effect viz., G.O.No.1D 418 dated 14.08.2000, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief, is concerned, this Court is not impressed with the said argument, for the reason that the Government issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 15.10.1996, wherein, it underlines the importance of certain jobs to be undertaken by the local self Governments such as Panchayat Union etc., One of the important function entrusted to the Village Panchayat, is to supply water to the rural people, for which, what was the requirement in the Village Panchayat had already been discussed earlier. Even the very appointment made by the fourth respondent in the case of the petitioners are only in pursuant to the directions issued by the Government, through the said G.O.Ms.No.226, in order to fulfil the prime job of the Village Panchayat to ensure protected drinking water being supplied to the Village people unendingly. Therefore, the said argument that the job of water supply should not have been fixed by the fourth respondent, on its own, without the sanction being made either by the Government or by the Collector cannot be accepted and the same also is liable to be rejected for the aforesaid reasons.
21. That apart, since similarly placed persons belonging to the very same District had already approached this Court, where orders were passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, after following the earlier order passed by this Court, as against which the Hon'ble Apex court verdict has been given, the issue had been concluded by reaching its own logical conclusion or finality, hence, the same once again cannot be re-agitated, after 14 years by the official respondents by raising the very same grounds, advanced by them in respect of those cases also.
22. For all these reasons cited above and the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.03.2003 and 17.10.2003 are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. It is needless to mention that, since the petitioners had been working from the date of their appointment i.e from 01.12.1997, their appointment shall be confirmed by the respondents by bringing them, under time scale of pay and they shall also be entitled to get the difference of pay, after deducting the consolidated pay, which had already been given to them. Such exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
07.12.2017 Speaking / Non-speaking Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes No mk To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Local Administration and Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector Kanyakumari District Nagercoil.
3. The Commissioner Melpuram Panchayat Union Pacode Post, Kanyakumari District.
4. The President, Devicode Village Panchayat, Melpalai Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
R.SURESH KUMAR.J., mk Writ Petition No.30374 of 2003 07.12.2017