Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Government (Converted) Rwo ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The ... on 19 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)2MLJ589
Author: T.V. Masilamani
Bench: T.V. Masilamani
ORDER R. Balasubramanian, J.
1. In all these writ petitions common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in one review application and several connected original applications are in challenge. Review Application No. 93 of 1992 was filed to review the earlier order of the Tribunal passed on 8.11.1991 in O.A.Nos.540 of 1989, 846 of 1989 and 270 of 1990 and in the connected original applications namely, O.A.Nos.3007 of 1990, 1830 of 1992, 4030 of 1993, 4087 of 1993, 4158 of 1993, 4221 of 1993 5930 of 1993, 6026 of 1996, 6250 of 1996, 6679 of 1996 and 7351 of 1996 various reliefs were asked for, for the first time either individually or by joining with more than one applicant in those original applications. The writ petitioners were originally appointed as Village Level Workers, hereinafter referred to as "VLW" for brevity sake, in Agriculture Department, who later on during 1970 to 1978 came to the services of the Rural Development Department as Gramasevaks. There was a dispute between the petitioners, who originally started their service in the Agriculture Department and those who were already working in the Rural Development Department about their inter se seniority, on the writ petitioners coming to work in the Rural Development Department. There were two Government Orders, one dated 4.2.1986 passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department and the other dated 6.6.1988 passed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department. A person by name Muthukrishnan went before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" in O.A. No. 276 of 1989 challenging the order of transfer transferring him from Rural Welfare Officer-Grade II to Junior Assistant and also for a direction to the respondents therein to implement the Government Orders referred to above. The Tribunal by order dated 9.5.1990 directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant therein on the two Government Orders referred to above. However, his challenge to the transfer order failed. It may be noticed here that the applicant in O.A. No. 276 of 1989 was originally appointed as "VLW" in Tiruttani Panchayat Union in the Agriculture Department on 7.7.1966, who later on came to work in the Rural Development Department. Apprehending that such a direction given in the above O.A. would affect those already working in the Rural Development Department, thirteen employees already working in that department filed Review Application No. 69 of 1990 before the Tribunal to review the order dated 9.5.1990 in O.A. No. 276 of 1989. A few more, who are similarly placed like the petitioner in O.A. No. 276 of 1989, filed O.A.Nos.540 of 1989, 846 of 1989, 270 of 1990 and 1844 of 1990, claiming various reliefs, which were also taken up along with R.A. No. 69 of 1990. The Tribunal by a common order dated 8.11.1991 disposed of all those proceedings by dismissing the review application and directing the respondents in all the Original Applications to reckon the seniority of the applicants therein with effect from the date of their first appointment as "VLW"/Assistant Agricultural Officer-Grade II in the Agriculture Department. The Tribunal in that order upheld the maintainability of the review application, which was opposed on the ground that if anybody was aggrieved by the order in O.A. No. 276 of 1989 they must only file an appeal before the higher forum. As a result of the order dated 08.11.1991 referred to above, the date of entry of "VLWs." in the Agriculture Department was taken into account while fixing their seniority in Rural Development Department. After the order dated 8.11.1991, persons, who were already working in Rural Development Department, filed Review Application No. 93 of 1992 to review the order passed in O.A. No. 540 of 1989 batch referred to above on the ground that, if the directions given in those applications are implemented, then their seniority are likely to be affected. Several persons working in Rural Development Department filed individual original applications challenging the order passed against them, consequent to their seniority getting affected, as a result of which, reversion orders were passed. The Tribunal by a common order dated 4.11.1998 allowed Review Application No. 93 of 1992 thereby recalling the order dated 8.11.1991 in O.A.Nos.540/1989, 846/1989 and 270 of 1990. By the same order, all the other original applications filed and heard along with the review application were also disposed of. As already stated, it is the last of the common order referred to above, that is in challenge in these writ petitions. Heard Mr. R. Singaravelan and Mr. V.R. Rjasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners; Mr. M. Vijayashankar and Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents/employees and Ms. Kavitha, learned Government Advocate representing the State.
2. Mr. R. Singaravelan and Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran learned counsels appearing for the writ petitioners would uniformly contend that the Rule of seniority, namely, Rule 11 provided in the Gramasevak Service Rules, since deleted, would not apply either to those who were originally working in Agriculture Department since started working in the Rural Development Department or to those who are already working in the Rural Development Department on and with effect from 1970, in which year the said Rule came to be deleted. The writ petitioners, who were originally working in the Agriculture Department, were absorbed in the Rural Development Department only by way of transfer. In the absence of any enabling provision in the Gramasevak Service Rules for fixing their seniority as Gramasevaks in the Rural Development Department, Rule 35(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules alone would apply. Under that Rule, when there is a transfer, then the transferred person cannot be treated as having come to be first appointed in the transferee department for the purpose of seniority and the seniority of such a person is determined with reference to his service in the department from where he was transferred. From the materials available on record, it is clear that the writ petitioners came to be transferred from the Agriculture Department to the Rural Development Department and therefore Rule 35(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules", would alone apply. It is their further submission that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that there is a direct conflict between two Benches of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as to whether the past service in the Agriculture Department of the writ petitioners should be included or not in fixing their seniority in the Rural Development Department, hereinafter referred to as "RDL", while in fact, there is no conflict at all. The later Bench of the Tribunal, while holding that the past service of those in the Agriculture Department cannot be totally ignored, denied the relief only prayed for in O.A. No. 3322/1990 on the ground of laches. Therefore the submission is that, it is only the impugned order that runs in conflict with the earlier orders of the Tribunal rendered by two different Benches. There is no laches at all in this case on the part of the writ petitioners and therefore that cannot come in the way of this court considering the case of the writ petitioners on merits. Opposing the points raised by the writ petitioners, Mr. M. Vijay Shankar and Mr. L. Chandrakumar, who are appearing for those who were already working in "RDL", would contend that the appointment of the writ petitioners in the "RDL" is only by way of first appointment. They were all facing retrenchment in the Agriculture Department. Taking a humanitarian view of the entire situation, the Government, instead of retrenching them, provided opportunities for them to get appointed as a fresh candidate in the "RDL". Gramasevaks in "RDL" before appointment, have to necessarily undergo training as prescribed in the Gramasevak Rules. The writ petitioners, before they came to be appointed in the "RDL", were also subjected to prior training. Therefore having regard to the scope of Gramasevak Rules in making appointment, the writ petitioners must be treated only as fresh appointees in "RDL". The only mode of recruitment of Gramasevaks in the "RDL" Department as per Gramasevak Rules is by direct recruitment. The Rules do not provide for appointment by transfer. Therefore from that angle also, it must be noted that the writ petitioners have come to be appointed only as freshers in "RDL" Department. If that is so, then their seniority will have to be counted only from their date of entry into the "RDL" Department and not in the context of their past service in the Agriculture Department. It is then submitted by them as an alternate point, that the writ petitioners are guilty of laches and due to their failure to challenge the seniority list prepared long before fixing those in "RDL" Department as seniors to the writ petitioners with reference to their respective date of entry into the "RDL", the list of seniority so settled cannot be unsettled now as done by the Tribunal by order dated 08.11.1991 and therefore the Tribunal, by passing the impugned order, had rightly set-right the injustice done to the respondents. Ms.Kavitha learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no element of transfer involved when the writ petitioners came to be appointed in "RDL" Department. Her submission is that long prior to the writ petitioners came to be appointed in the "RDL", there was already a severance of employer-employee relationship between the writ petitioners and the Agriculture Department . She would also state that if the writ petitioners' appointment in "RDL" is treated as first appointment, then their seniority in that Department would have to be necessarily on the basis of their respective date of entry into that Department and not with reference to the past service rendered by them in the Agriculture Department .
3. We applied our mind to the various facts brought to our notice. It is not in dispute that the Government by G.O. Ms. No. 1276, Food and Agriculture, dated 1.4.1965 accorded sanction for employment of 415 "V.L.W" on a scale of pay of Rs.90-4-110-3-140 to work in various blocks of the selected districts of Coimbatore, Chengalpattu, Madurai and Tirunelveli for implementation of Intensive Agricultural Area Programme for stepping up agricultural production. The sanction accorded for employment of 415 "VLW" is in addition to the normal strength of 10 Gramasevaks per block. The Government in their counter affidavit filed before this court has stated as follows:
"The strength of Gramasevaks in each block is 10; in the Intensive Agricultural Area Programme in addition to the normal strength of 10 Gramasevaks, 5 "VLW" in each block (totally) 415 posts in the four Intensive Agricultural Area Programme District (ie) Chengalpattu, Coimbatore, Madurai and Tirunelveli were appointed to implement the time bound programme; so in the block set up at the village level, there were two categories of staff i.e. Gramasevaks -10 numbers - fully trained and Village Level Workers - 5 numbers without any training."
It is also not in dispute that "V.L. Ws" came to be appointed, as no Gramasevaks were immediately available for posting. Later on by memorandum dated 26.6.1965, the post of "VLW" were converted to the category "Village Level Workers (Field Men)" in the time scale of pay of Rs.90-3-105-4-125 and that those posts have been continued up to and inclusive of 28.2.1967 by G.O.Ms. No. 1586, Food and Agriculture dated 7.5.1966. During that period, Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 99, dated 13.1.1967- Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Madras - 9, which Government Order reads as hereunder:-
"The Government, after careful consideration, have since taken the decision that in future there should be only one category of Village Level Workers, viz., Gramasevaks, in the Block set up since employment of two different categories of workers with different Training backgrounds at the Village Level for the same job was not condusive to good administration. The Government therefore, direct that these 415 posts of Village Level Workers (Field men) sanctioned in the Government Order first read above and last continued in the G.O. third read above be converted into that of Gramasevaks, Grade-II in the scale of Rs.90-4-110-3-140, as and when Gramasevaks became available for posting.
The government also direct, that among the Village Level Workers, who will thus be replaced, such of them as are suitable for appointment as Gramasevaks be sent for the Gramasevak Training course in the Rural Extension Training Centres. The Director of Rural Development in consultation with Director of Agriculture, Madras will take further action accordingly in the matter.
This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department - vide its W.O. No. 5029-A/P.1387-1, dated 18.1.1967."
4. It may also be noticed that the Village Level Workers, who were earlier converted to the category of Village Level Workers (Field Men), came to be re-designated as Assistant Agricultural Officer-Grade II in the Agriculture Department. In this context, this court want to reiterate that the initial appointment as Village Level Workers, which stand re-designated as Assistant Agricultural Officer-Grade II was in the Agriculture Department to start with and it continued to be so when G.O.Ms. No. 99 dated 13.1.1967 R.D.&L.A. Department came to be passed. Assistant Agricultural Officer - Grade-II in the Agriculture Department is equivalent to Rural Welfare Officer - Grade-Ii in "RDL". In the above context, the letter dated 4.2.1986 came to be issued by the Agriculture Department stating that under the flexible complementing scheme, in respect of Assistant Agricultural Officer-Grade II, who have completed ten years of service even before they were appointed as Rural Welfare Officers- Grade II, their pay may be fixed in the scale of Assistant Agricultural Officer - Grade I as on 1.10.1978 and orders may be passed to appoint those officers as Rural Welfare Officer - Grade I from 1.10.1978 onwards. The later letter dated 6.6.1988 on the file of Rural Development Department reads the letter dated 4.2.1986 and directed the Commissioner of Rural Development, Directorate of Rural Department to take follow up actions, based on the instructions contained in the Government letter dated 4.2.1986. We have already referred to O.A. No. 276 of 1989 filed before the Tribunal seeking relief based on the two letters referred to above. The rest is, proceedings before the Tribunal and orders passed there on, which have given rise to the present writ petitions. To complete the narration of facts, we will state hereunder, the nature of disposal given by the Tribunal to the various proceedings brought before it.
"O.A. No. 276 of 1989 was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 9.5.1990 refusing to interfere with the order of transfer but giving a direction to the authorities to consider the impact of the two letters namely, 4.2.1986 and 6.6.1988 on the claim of the applicant therein and pass orders thereon. R.A. NO. 69 of 1990 in O.A. No. 276 of 1989 and O.A. No. 540 of 1989 batch was disposed of by the Tribunal on 8.11.1991 dismissing the review application and allowing the other applications directing the authorities to reckon the seniority of the applicants therein with effect from the date of their first appointment as Village Level Workers/Assistant Agricultural Officers - Grade II. In the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed R.A. No. 93 of 1992 and set aside the order passed on 8.11.1991 in O.A.Nos.540 of 1989, 846 of 1989, 270 of 1989 and 1844 of 1990. The Tribunal also disposed all the other Original Applications filed before it. The consequent result is, the order dated 8.11.1991 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 540 of 1989 batch directing the authorities to reckon the seniority of the applicants therein with effect from the date of their first appointment as Village Level Workers/ Assistant Agricultural Officers-Grade II was interfered with. The Tribunal for taking the view as stated above in the impugned order, was inclined to follow the earlier order dated 29.4.1992 in O.A. No. 3322 of 1990 on the file of the very same Tribunal, which was moved by a person, who was similarly placed like the petitioners. The Tribunal in the present impugned order also held that the seniority of the writ petitioners will have to be reckoned only from the date of their appointment in the Rural Development Department and their past services in the Agriculture Department cannot be taken into account. It was also held that there is snapping of relationship of the petitioners with their erstwhile employer namely, Agriculture Department on and with effect from 13.1.1967 when G.O.Ms. No. 99 R.D.&L.A. came to be passed. According to the Tribunal, the said G.O. would amount to severance of service relationship between the writ petitioners on the one hand and the Agriculture Department on the other hand and their entry into Rural Development Department is governed by Gramasevaks Service Rules, 1964, which prescribes various qualifications. The Tribunal in the impugned order has also held that single service rules would not apply to the case on hand, since Gramasevak Rules, 1964 was not superceded.
We will also give hereunder the manner in which the relief prayed for in the connected applications was dealt with along with R.A. No. 93/2002 and the nature of disposal. The applicant in O.A. No. 3007/1990 is the first review petitioner in R.A. No. 69/1990 in O.A. No. 276/1989. He was already working in "RDL". He was challenging the fixation of his seniority interse with those who came from Agriculture Department . The applicants in O.A. No. 1830/1992 are similarly placed like the writ petitioners. The applicant in O.A.Nos.4030/1993, 4158/1993 and 4221/1993 were challenging their order of reversion based on the alteration of their respective seniority, which was interfered with by fixing the seniority of those who came from the Agriculture Department , taking their past service in that Department into account. The applicant in O.A. No. 4087/1993 is again from the Agriculture Department and he was challenging the promotion given to R3 therein, who was already working in "RDL". The applicants in O.A. No. 5933/1993 wanted them to be promoted as Extension Officers with reference to their seniority in the post of Rural Welfare Officer - Grade-I reckoning their service from 01.10.1978, the date on which their juniors were promoted. The applicants in O.A.Nos.6026/1996, 6250/1996, 6679/1996 and 7351/1996 were already working in "RDL". They are challenging their orders of reversion passed on the seniority fixed pursuant to the order dated 08.11.1991 passed by the Tribunal. After discussion, the Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed R.A. No. 93/1992 thereby setting aside the earlier order dated 08.11.1991 passed in O.A. No. 540/1989 batch passed by the Tribunal. O.A. No. 3007/1990 was partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the proceedings dated 04.02.1986 on the file of the Deputy Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department. O.A.Nos.4030, 4087, 4158, 4221, 6026, 6250, 6679 and 7351/1996 were allowed. O.A.Nos.1830/1992 and 5930/1993 were dismissed.
5. Let us now examine the case. We have decided to divide the points involved in this case as hereunder:
(a) When the post of the writ petitioners, in the Agriculture Department , came to be converted as Gramasevaks Grade-II in "RDL", should their service in "RDL" is to be treated as a fresh appointment in "RDL" or should it be treated as appointment in "RDL" by transfer/conversion?
(b) If the writ petitioners' service in "RDL" is only by transfer from Agriculture Department , what is the service Rule, which governs fixation of their seniority?
(c ) Should the writ petitioners be denied the relief, if any, which they are otherwise entitled to, on the ground of laches?
Point - (a):
(i) The origin of the writ petitioners' claim is G.O.Ms. No. 99 dated 18.01.1967 passed by the Rural Development and Local Administration Department. A reading of the said Government Order would disclose that by G.O.Ms. No. 1276, Food and Agriculture dated 01.04.1965, sanction was accorded for employment of 415 "VLWs" on a scale of pay of Rs.90-4-110-3-140 to work in the various blocks of the selected Districts of Coimbatore, Chengleput, Madurai and Tirunelveli for implementation of intensive agricultural area programme to step up agricultural production. Such sanction was in addition to the normal strength of 10 Gramasevaks per block. The Government Order also records that "VLWs" were appointed as no Gramasevaks were immediately available for posting. It is not in dispute that by memorandum dated 20.06.1965, "VLWs" were converted to the category of "VLW" (Fieldmen) in the scale of pay of Rs.90-3-105-4-125 and as Assistant Agricultural Officer - Grade-II. Assistant Agricultural Officer - Grade-II in the Agriculture Department is equivalent to Gramasevak - Grade-II in "RDL" Department. Those posts have been continued upto and inclusive of 28.02.1967 by G.O.Ms. No. 1586 dated 07.05.1966. G.O.Ms. No. 99, the origin of the present case, had come to be passed before the expiry of 28.02.1967. G.O.Ms. No. 99 provides that 415 posts of "VLW" (Fieldmen) be converted into that of Gramasevaks - Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs.90-4-110-3-140 as and when Gramasevaks became available for posting. The reason for such conversion, as could be seen from the Government Order itself, is that the Government was of the opinion that for a good administration, employment of two different categories of workers ("VLWs" and Gramasevaks) with different training backgrounds at the village level for the same job was not conducive. The Government Order further directs that among the "VLWs", who are going to be replaced, such of them as are suitable for appointment as Gramasevaks, be sent for Gramasevak training course in the rural extension training centres and it directs the Director of Rural Development, in consultation with the Director of Agriculture, to take further action accordingly in that matter. Therefore it is clear that the Government, as a policy decision, did not want to have two different categories of workers at the village level for the same job and with that view in mind, conversion of 415 posts of "VLWs" (Fieldmen) as Gramasevaks - Grade-II was ordered and posting of such converted "VLWs" would be done when Gramasevaks became available for posting. Therefore it is a case of merger of two posts. It is not in dispute that pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 99, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 77 dated 07.01.1971, G.O.Ms. No. 2647 dated 22.12.1972, G.O.Ms. No. 1643 dated 11.08.1976, G.O.Ms. No. 1944 dated 06.12.1977, G.O.Ms. No. 6491 dated 29.04.1978 and G.O.Ms. No. 1215 dated 14.08.1980 in and by which, 100, 39, 96, 70, 11 and 5 respective of "VLWs" came to be absorbed in "RDL" as Gramasevaks - Grade-II. These details are furnished by the Government Pleader. Therefore to understand the issue namely, whether the service of "VLWs" in "RDL" is by way of a direct and first appointment in that Department or is it by way of merger of a post from Agriculture Department with an enqivalent post in "RDL", G.O.Ms. No. 99 must be read along with the above referred to Government Orders. Before us, G.O.Ms. No. 77 dated 07.01.1971, G.O.Ms. No. 1643 dated 11.08.1976 and G.O.Ms. No. 1944 dated 06.12.1977 alone are made available. We have already referred to the contents of G.O.Ms. No. 99. G.O.Ms. No. 77 deals with conversion of 100 "VLWs" (Fieldmen) as Gramasevaks - Grade-II. It is seen from that Government Order that orders were earlier issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1790 dated 05.09.1968 deputing 168 "VLWs" (Fieldmen) to undergo pre-service training for a period of two years for their ultimate absorption as Gramasevaks - Grade-II. The Director of Rural Development had since reported that all those 167 "VLWs", who were completing their training on 01.12.1970, were to be given postings, for which he had requested that sanction may be accorded for the conversion of 100 posts of "VLWs" (Fieldmen) in the scale of pay of Rs.90-3-105-4-125 into that of Gramasevaks - Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs.90-4-110-3-140 and to transfer those posts of the "VLWs". It is seen further seen from the said Government Order that the Government, accepting the request of the Director of Rural Development, directed that 100 posts of "VLWs" (Fieldmen) must be converted into those of Gramasevaks-Grade-II with effect from 01.12.1970, the date on which the "VLWs" were completing the training. The Government Order further records that the above converted post should be fixed Distrist wise and should be transferred from the Agriculture Department to the Rural Development and Local Administrative Department with effect from 01.12.1970. The Government Order also records that the remaining of the 27 trained persons will be absorbed in the existing regular vacancies. G.O.Ms. No. 2647 R.D.&L.A. Dated 22.12.1972 is referred to in G.O.Ms. No. 1643 R.D.&L.A dated 11.08.1976. Under G.O.Ms. No. 2647, 39 "VLWs" re-designated as Assistant Agricultural Officer - Grade-II came to be converted as Gramasevaks - Grade-II. In G.O.Ms. No. 1643 dated 11.08.1976, the Government had accepted the proposal referred to above and directed conversion of 96 posts of "VLWs" (Fieldmen) in the scale of pay of Rs.210-5-245-10-325 to be converted into Gramasevaks - Grade-II holding the same scale of pay with a rider to the Director of Rural Development that he should not thereafter send any proposal for conversion of the 96 posts of Gramasevaks - Grade-II into Grade-I. This Government Order also records that 96 posts should be transferred from the Agriculture Department to the Panchayat Development Department with effect from the date of the said order. The last of the Government Order available in this context is G.O.Ms. No. 1944 R.D.&L.A dated 06.12.1977. The contents of this Government Order is similar to the earlier Government Orders referred to above and under this Government Order, 70 posts of "VLWs" (Fieldmen) in the scale of pay of Rs.210-5-245-10-325 were converted into Gramasevaks - Grade-II holding the same scale of pay with a rider similar to the one found in G.O.Ms. No. 1643. Under this Government Order, the concerned 70 posts stood transferred from the Agriculture Department to the Rural Development and Local Administration Department with effect from the date of that order and allotted District wise.
(ii) It may be noticed here in this context that when the impugned proceedings were pending before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Government took the stand that the posts of "VLWs" (Fieldmen) were transferred from the Agriculture Department to "RDL" and along with the post, equal number of "VLWs", who were converted into Gramasevaks, were also transferred to "RDL" Department. We extract hereunder the relevant portion of their stand before the Tribunal:
"The posts were transferred from Agriculture Department to Rural Development & Local Administration Department with effect from 01.12.1970. The Village Level Workers were appointed by the Agriculture Department for stepping up the agricultural production. The Gramasevaks were appointed by the Rural Development & Local Administration Department for implementing the Community Development Scheme. The VLWs have right because they worked under the control of Block Development Officer in Rural Development Department and doing the work similar to that of Rural Welfare Officers. The VLWs and the Gramasevaks were working together and implemented both the schemes i.e., IAAP and Community Development. It may not be justified if the services rendered by the Assistant Agricultural Officers in Agriculture Department are totally ignored for seniority in Panchayat Development Unit."
Of course, only now before this court for the first time, the Government has taken a stand that there is no element of transfer involved in these cases and the writ petitioners, who were facing retrenchment consequent to the abolition of the post, were sent for Gramasevak training and redeployed. This stand of the Government is not supported by any material. Therefore it is clear to our mind that the Government is playing hot and cold by changing their stands. In the face of the facts available in the various Government Orders, which we have referred to above, it is clear to our mind that none of the "VLWs" were facing any retrenchment/termination of service when they were working in the Agriculture Department as "VLWs". This court is informed that a hand full of people in Agriculture Department working as "VLWs" did not opt for the post of Gramasevaks in "RDL" Department and therefore they continued to work in the Agriculture Department (Parent Department) and gained their due promotions and ultimately retired. In our opinion, that would be a tilting factor in favour of the writ petitioners to hold that they were not facing retrenchment/termination at any point of time when G.O.Ms. No. 99 dated 13.01.1967 came to be passed. As noted in the above referred to Government Order namely, G.O.Ms. No. 99, "VLWs" came to be posted in "RDL" due to a policy decision of the Government, about which, we have already referred to. If the case of "VLWs" working in Agriculture Department at the time of their entry into "RDL" should be treated only as first appointment, then there is no need to transfer the post, which they were occupying in the Agriculture Department to the "RDL". Under the various Government Orders referred to above, whenever "VLWs" completed their training, they were, along with equal number of posts, transferred to "RdL". At the risk of repetition, we state that if it is a case of first appointment for "VLWs" in "RDL", then there would be no need at all for transferring the post also, which was otherwise available in the Agriculture Department. If it is a case of retrenchment or termination of "VLWs" in the Agriculture Department, then their terminal benefits ought to have been settled in a manner known to law. Government had not placed any material at all at any point of time and even till now as to how the claim of "VLWs" working in Agriculture Department, if they were really terminated or retrenched, came to be settled. As already noted, even after G.O.Ms. No. 99 R.D.&L.A dated 18.01.1967, the "VLWs" (Assistant Agricultural Officer - Grade-II) continued to be in the Agriculture Department working in their original capacity till such time they underwent the pre-service training for Gramasevaks and ultimately coming to be absorbed as Gramasevaks - Grade-II in the R.D.&L.A Department. Such absorption/merger was during the period from 1971 to 1978 and during this long period, it is not the case of the Government that those "VLWs" were sent home after their services were terminated in the Agriculture Department; sent for pre-service training as and when need arose and then they being posted in the R.D.&L.A Department. From none of the records, we could find that on the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 99 R.D.&L.A dated 18.01.1967, "VLWs" working in Agriculture Department came to be terminated in any manner known to law. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by it's order dated 08.11.1991 in R.A. No. 69/1990 in O.A. No. 276/1989 and O.A. No. 540/1989 batch held that the past services rendered by "VLWs" in the Agriculture Department has to be reckoned with for the purpose of seniority in "RDL". Similar is the view of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in it's order dated 29.04.1992 in O.A. No. 3322/1990. But as stated earlier, the Tribunal did not give the relief in O.A. No. 3322/1990 only on the ground of laches. In paragraph No. 65 of the impugned order, the Tribunal had said as hereunder:
"Of course, it has to be recognised that there was no break in their service of the erstwhile Village Level Workers, who joined the converted posts Gramasevaks Grade-II."
In paragraph 77 of the impugned order, the Tribunal had said that the writ petitioners' earlier service in the Agriculture Department cannot be totally ignored when they were transferred along with the posts on administrative grounds to "RDL". For all the reasons stated above, we conclude that the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer - Grade-II in the Agriculture Department came to be merged with the post of Gramasevaks - Grade-II in "RDL"; there is no snapping of service condition of "VLWs" after the passing of G.O.Ms. No. 99 R.D.&L.A dated 18.01.1967 with the Agriculture Department and each one of them continued to be in the service of the Agriculture Department till such time they underwent the pre-service training and got absorbed as Gramasevaks - Grade-II in "RDL".
Point - (b):
6. (i) There is a set of Rule called Gramasevak Service Rules, which came into force on 15.10.1964. In the impugned order, the Tribunal had found that though Single Service Rules had been brought into force in the year 1984, yet the seniority of "VLWs", who were appointed in the created post of Gramasevak Grade-II is determined solely with reference to Gramasevak Service Rules only, which Rule was not superceded or annulled by the Common Service Rules (Single Service Rules). It is not the case of any of the parties to the writ petitions that Single Service Rules alone would govern the fixing of seniority. In fact, no argument is advanced by any of the counsel on record for the parties to the writ petition on the provisions of the Single Service Rules. Therefore it is needless to state that the seniority of the writ petitioners in "RDL" has to be necessarily decided under the Gramasevak Service Rules, 1964, if it applies. Rule 11 of the said Rule is as hereunder:
"The seniority of the Gramasevaks, Grade-II shall be fixed with reference to the aggregate marks obtained by them in the tests held during the period of training referred to in Rule 9 and in the final examination at the completion of the training."
The mode of recruitment to Gramasevaks under the Rule is only by direct recruitment. The educational qualification for such Gramasevaks is that the candidate should have completed S.S.L.C with not less than 40% marks in Tamil. Under Rule 9, every person selected for appointment to category 2 (b) (Gramasevaks Grade-II), shall before being appointed, undergo training for such period as may be stipulated from time to time. These are the relevant provisions in the above referred to Rules. The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 528 R.D & L.A dated 17.03.1972 issued orders to the Director of Rural Development to submit proposals for relaxation of relevant Rules in favour of "VLWs", who have been appointed as Gramasevaks Grade-Ii and accordingly the Director of Rural Development sent proposals for relaxation of the relevant Rules in favour of 100 "VLWs", who have been appointed as Gramasevaks Grade-II. That proposal was considered by the Government and G.O.Ms. No. 1069 dated 16.07.1979 was issued relaxing the educational qualification of one person by name S. Venkataraman, who was admittedly not possessing the requisite qualification for getting appointed as Gramasevak Grade-II as provided for under Rule 5. Under the said Government Order, the method of direct recruitment, the age and the qualification prescribed under those Rules namely, Rules 2 and 6, were also dispensed with in respect of all the 100 "VLWs". Then, again by G.O.Ms. No. 2734 dated 29.12.1970, the Government brought an amendment to the Gramasevak Rules by omitting Rule 11. Therefore on and with effect from the date of passing G.O.Ms. No. 2734 dated 29.12.1970, Rule 11 prescribing the method of fixing seniority among the Gramasevaks had been omitted. The omission of Rule 11 was in the context of providing reservation for appointments under General Rule 22 to the post of Executive Officers of Town Panchayats Grade-I and Gramasevaks Grade-II by direct recruitment. The above referred to Government Order reads that Rule 11 as it stood in the Gramasevak Service Rules would contravene the provisions of General Rule 22 or 35(a) and to make Rule 35(a) of the General Rule operative, the amendment was introduced. The Legislature itself, in doing away with Rule 11 of the Gramasevak Service Rules, wanted Rule 35(a) of General Rules to become operational. Therefore it is clear that in fixing the seniority of Gramasevaks, Rule 11 as it stood prior to the amendment as referred to above is no longer available. Under these circumstances, one has to necessarily fall back upon Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which contains Rule 35(a).
(ii) We went through Rule 35(a) of the above referred to Rules. Rule 35(a) would come into operation in fixing the seniority of a person in service in the circumstances given therein, under which the date of commencement of a servant's probation shall be the date on which he joins duty, irrespective of his seniority. In our considered opinion, Rule 35(a) of the General Rules cannot be operated in fixing the seniority of Gramasevaks Grade-II, who originally rendered their service in the Agriculture Department. We have already concluded in analysing Point (a) framed by us that the writ petitioners came into the "RDL" Department on conversion of the post, which they held in the Agriculture Department, into Gramasevaks Grade-II in "RDL" Department. If that is so, Rule 35(b) of the General Rule alone would get attracted, which reads as hereunder:
"The transfer of a person from one class or category of service to another class or category carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purpose of seniority and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the class or category from which he was transferred; where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying this sub-rule, seniority shall be determined by the Appointing Authority."
The qualification prescribed for "VLWs" and Gramasevaks Grade-II is S.S.L.C and the method of recruitment being through employment exchange and by direct recruitment by giving an advertisement in the newspaper respectively. "VLWs" were appointed to implement Intensive Agricultural Area Programme and the nature of duties for Gramasevaks was for doing agricultural work. The scale of pay of "VLWs" is Rs.90-4-110-2-140 while that of the Gramasevaks is Rs.90-4-110-3-140. The "VLWs" scale of pay with effect from 20.06.1965 is Rs.90-3-105-4-125 and their respective scale of pay in the Second Tamil Nadu Pay Commission Report with effect from 02.10.1970 is Rs.210-5-245-10-325. From the above details it is clear that "VLWs" were getting the same scale of pay as that of Gramasevaks and the nature of duty is also more or less similar. If that is so, applying Rule 35(b) of the General Rules, the writ petitioners' entry into "RDL" shall not be treated as their first appointment in the Department for the purpose of seniority but on the other hand, the writ petitioners' seniority shall be determined with reference to the rank from which they were transferred. Therefore we have no doubt at all that the order of the Tribunal impugned in all these writ petitions to ignore the services rendered by the writ petitioners in the Agriculture Department is in total violation of Rule 35(b) of the General Rules. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case (V.K. Dubey v. Union of India). In that case the inter se seniority of the service personnel of Diesel Locomotive Sector and Electrical Engine Sector was in issue. The service personnel of Diesel Locomotive Sector wanted their services in the Diesel Locomotive Sector to be taken into account for fixing their seniority in the Electrical Engine Sector. The Supreme Court found that the service personnel of Diesel Locomotive Sector were expected to be retrenched in the context of Diesel Locomotives being displaced. In that context, they were redeployed in the Electrical Engine Sector and therefore their services in the Diesel Locomotive Sector are not to be taken into account for fixing their seniority in the latter sector. From the above judgment it is seen that the court found on facts that there was redeployment of service personnel from Diesel Locomotive Sector into Electrical Engine Sector. But on facts, that is not the case here, since we have found on the materials referred to above by us earlier while discussing Point (a) framed by us that there is no retrenchment; the writ petitioners continued to be in service in the Agriculture Department and their posts in the Agriculture Department were converted into the post of Gramasevaks Grade-II in "RDL". Having regard to the factual difference between the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and decided by us in this case, we have no doubt at all that Rule 35(b) of the General Rule referred to above alone would apply to determine the seniority of the writ petitioners. Rule 35(b) admits no ambiguity and therefore it becomes operational in this case. Accordingly we hold that Rule 35(b) of the General Rules contained in Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules alone would apply to the case on hand and the judgment of the Tribunal impugned in these writ petitions is in violation of the above referred to Rule.
Point - (c ):
7. Elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that there is delay on the part of the writ petitioners in challenging the seniority list of those people, who were already working in "RDL" fixed after the entry of the writ petitioners into that Department long long before. Therefore the belated challenge cannot upset such seniority list. To answer this issue, the following dates would be relevant:
10.07.1983 - Provisional inter se seniority between the "VLWs" and Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II (Gramasevaks Grade-II) was fixed for the first time.
22.10.1983 - The writ petitioner in W.P.7591/1999, who is similarly placed like the writ petitioners in the other petitions filed his objections to the provisional seniority list.
24.02.1984 - Seniority list confirmed.
28.03.1984 - The writ petitioner namely, Koteeswaran filed an appeal.
12.04.1984 - Single Service Rules published.
08.11.1986 - The petitioner in W.P.No.7591/1999 filed objections.
12.05.1987 - Integrated seniority list confirmed and published.
12.12.1988 - Appeal was filed by the petitioner in
W.P.No.7591/1999
February 1990 - O.A.No.270/1990 batch was filed before
the Tribunal.
08.11.1991 - O.A.No.270/1990 batch was allowed by
the Tribunal.
04.11.1998 - Review Application No.93/1992 was
challenged in the writ petition and the
other O.As were allowed by the Tribunal.
From the sequence of events it is clear that the provisional inter se seniority between the "VLWs" and Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II (Gramasevaks Grade-II) was fixed for the first time only on 10.07.1983. Rest of the dates we have mentioned above. It may be true that only one person, who was originally working in the Agriculture Department objected to the seniority list. As seen from the above, it is clear that the said person has been continuously and consistently agitating the issue. Once seniority list is agitated or objected to and if such objections are found to be sustainable, then as a model employer, the Government must give the benefit of such re-fixation of seniority to all the persons affected by the earlier fixation. Assuming that the other writ petitioners have not been objecting to the fixation of seniority as first published on 10.07.1983 (no record is produced before us to decide either way namely, whether they have raised objections or not raised the same), we are not inclined to deny the relief to them, if they are otherwise entitled to. As we have already noted, the seniority list has been under constant and continuous attack by atleast one person belonging to the writ petitioners' category and his attack would enure to the benefit of all the writ petitioners. Consequently, we hold that the writ petitioners are not guilty of laches at all.
8. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to agree with the judgment of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petitions. Accordingly the judgment impugned in the writ petitions is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. Connected W.M.Ps are closed. No costs. In view of the orders passed by us today in these writ petitions, the concerned authorities are directed to fix the seniority of the writ petitioners in accordance with the law laid down in this judgment with retrospective effect from the date on which their seniority ought to have been fixed but for the order of the Tribunal challenged in these writ petitions. Such an exercise shall be completed by the authorities.