Madras High Court
M.Arputham vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 February, 2006
W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.04.2022
DELIVERED ON : 08.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.Nos.24496 and 24499 of 2013
1.M.Arputham
2.E.Pushparaj
3.G.Vijayan
4.E.Chandran
5.V.Mani
6.M.Sukumar ... Petitioners in
W.P.No.24496/2013
1.B.Sundar
2.J.Munusamy
3.R.Haribabu
4.S.Tharanirajan
5.M.Muniandi
6.R.Jothi
7.V.Subramani ... Petitioners in
W.P.No.24499/2013
Vs
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration
and Water Supply,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013
2.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Regional Director,
Municipal Administration,
Chengalpattu Region,
Chengalpattu.
4.The Executive Officer,
Thiruverkadu Municipality,
Thiruverkadu – 600 077. ... Respondents in
both W.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the records relating to the order issued by the 4 th respondent herein in
his proceedings with Na.Ka.415/05 dated 28.02.2006, quashing the same
insofar as it relates to the date of regularisation of the employment of
petitioners on timescale of pay as on 23.02.2006 and consequently
directing the respondents herein to regularise the employment of
petitioners on a timescale of pay with effect from 01.07.2003 and
01.04.2003 respectively as per G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 26.10.1998 and
G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 12.08.1997 respectively and to pay the arrears of
pay due to the petitioners since 01.07.2003 and 01.04.2003 respectively.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Elango
(In both W.Ps)
For Respondents : Mr.Selvaraj,
(In both W.Ps) Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.R.Mohandoss for R4
2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013
COMMON ORDER
In both these writ petitions, the petitioners herein, who were appointed on consolidated pay as Pump Operators / Sanitary Workers by the fourth respondent Municipality, with effect from 01.07.2000 and 01.04.2000 respectively and regularised on 23.02.2006, claim retrospective regularization with effect from 01.07.2003 and 01.04.2003 respectively, on completion of three years of service from the date of their appointment.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.24496 of 2013 were appointed as Pump Operators as per G.O.Ms.No.198, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.10.1998, on consolidated pay of Rs.600/- per month, with effect from 01.07.2000, by the fourth respondent, which was at that point of time a Special Grade Town Panchayat. Likewise, the petitioners in W.P.No.24499 of 2013 were appointed as Sanitary Workers through G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.08.1997, on consolidated pay of Rs.900/- per month, with effect from 01.04.2000. When similarly placed employees appointed under G.O.Ms.No.198, 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 26.10.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.08.1997 and were placed under timescale of pay on completion of three years from the date of their initial engagement i.e., from 01.07.2003 and 01.04.2003, the present petitioners had made representations to the fourth respondent seeking for a similar relief of regularization on completion of three years i.e., from 01.07.2003 and 01.04.2003 respectively and in view of the non consideration of their request in time, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.
3. In G.O.Ms.No.84, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 21.05.1998, certain modifications with regard to the salaries of Sanitary Workers appointed under G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 12.08.1997 were made. Thereafter, in G.O.Ms.No.279, Municipal Administration dated 06.11.2012, a reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 26.10.1998, G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 12.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 21.05.1998 and the similarly placed workers, who had filed writ petitions before this Court, were directed to be placed in timescale of pay, from the date on 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 which they had completed three years of service on consolidated pay. In G.O.Ms.No.119, Municipal and Administration Department, dated 08.03.2013, similarly placed workers of the Town Panchayat, who had filed writ petitions before this Court, were also brought in regular timescale of pay, from the date of completion of their three years of service on consolidated pay.
4. The main issue involved in both these writ petition is as to whether all these petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date on which they had completed three years of service from their respective initial engagement?
5. This issue had already come up before this Court for consideration in W.P.No.27191 of 2004, as against which an appeal came to be filed by the official respondents in the case of Director of Town Panchayat and others Vs. R.Sundaradas in W.A.No.1454 of 2007 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 19.12.2008, had affirmed the order of learned Single Judge in holding that the employees would be entitled for regularization, on completion of three 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 years of service from their date of initial engagement. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“2.There is absolutely no merit in this appeal. The appeal has been filed for the sake of filing an appeal. The respondent herein joined the service of the third appellant as sweeper on 16.03.1998. Based on two G.Os. Ms.Nos.84 and 199, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.05.1998 and 12.08.1997, the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, sought for regularisation, which has been rejected by the respondent. The correctness was canvassed before the Court by filing the writ petition. As could be seen from the order, the request for regularisation has been rejected on two grounds – the first being that the leave period of the respondent from 23.04.1998 to 14.06.1998 has not been regularised and the services of the respondent has not been appraised as required under the G.O.
3.The Writ Court, after taking into consideration the materials placed before it, has found that the first of the reasons that the leave period between 23.04.1998 and 14.06.1998 has been regularised is not correct and as a matter of fact, by proceedings dated 16.06.2001 the leave period has been regularised. Likewise, the third appellant, in his communication dated 16.06.2001, has categorically stated that the respondent has completed 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 three years of service and the appellant appraised the service of the respondent and on being satisfied, recommended the case of the respondent for regularisation. On that score, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. That order is canvassed before us in this appeal.
4.The very same arguments that had been submitted before the Writ Court, are reiterated before this Court. We are not able to countenance any of those arguments. This is a pure and simple factual issue, which has been considered on the basis of the materials available on record in favour of the respondent. Hence, we find no merit in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed.”
6. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1454 of 2007 was challenged by the official respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil)No. 16217 of 2009, which came to be dismissed on 16.03.2012. Thus, the decision of this Court that the employees, who are similarly placed as that of the petitioners herein, would be entitled for regularization on completion of three years of service.
7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013
7. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1454 of 2007, came to be followed for similarly placed employees in the case of The Executive Officer Vs. C.Kittusamy and others in W.A.Nos.47 and 385 of 2010 and in the order dated 23.06.2010, the Hon'ble Division Bench had affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge, with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners therein for being brought into the regular timescale of pay from the date of completion of three years. This order reads as follows:
“2.The short facts leading to the filing of these appeals are stated hereunder:-
The petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed as Sweepers/Sanitary Workers by the concerned Town Panchayats, on a consolidated pay of Rs.900/- with effect from 27.3.1998 and 30.4.1998 respectively. They joined duty on different dates in the year 1998. As per the Government Orders, dated 17.8.1999, on completion of three years of service on consolidated pay, they should have been brought under the timescale of pay with effect from the date when they completed three years. But by means of the orders impugned in the writ petitions, they were brought under the 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 timescale of pay only with effect from 23.2.2006 in so far as W.A.No.47 of 2010 is concerned and with effect from 23.6.2006 in so far as W.A.No.385 of 2010 is concerned. The said orders were challenged in the writ petitions.
3.The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1454 of 2007, dated 19.12.2008 in the case of Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam, Chennai and two others -vs- R.Sundaradas, allowed the writ petitions and held that the writ petitioners are entitled to the timescale of pay only from the date when they completed three years on consolidated pay and not from any subsequent date.
Aggrieved by the same, the respective panchayats have filed the above appeals.
4.We have perused the judgment, dated 19.12.2008, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned appeal. In our view, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the present cases are squarely covered by the said Division Bench judgment. We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit in the appeals, they stand dismissed.”
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents made an attempt to submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.21, 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 Municipal and Administration Department, dated 23.02.2006, the Government had brought similarly placed employees under regular timescale of pay with effect from 23.02.2006, which Government Order has been upheld by an Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of S.Dhanasekaran and others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Chennai - 2 reported in 2013 (6) CTC 593 and therefore, the claim of the petitioners seeking for regularization, on completion of three years, is unacceptable.
9. The order of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court will not be applicable to the case of the petitioners herein. The employees governed under the orders of the Full Bench are from the Municipalities and not from the Town Panchayats like the case of the petitioners herein. The present petitioners are governed by the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 26.10.1998; G.O.Ms.No.199, dated 12.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.279, dated 06.11.2012, which provides for bringing the consolidated pay employees of the Town Panchayats into regular timescale of pay, on completion of three years and which procedure were 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Such a position was not the case before the Hon'ble Full Bench, which dealt with G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 23.02.2006. Furthermore, the claim of the petitioners is no more res integra in view of the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.Sundaradas (supra) and C.Kittusamy and others (supra). Thus, the impugned orders, regularization the employment of the petitioners on timescale of pay requires to be modified from 23.02.2006 to 01.07.2003 and 01.04.2003 respectively, when they had completed three years of service on consolidated basis.
10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.02.2006, in both the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to pass modified orders, regularizing the petitioners' services by bringing them on regular timescale of pay, with the effect from 01.07.2003 and 01.04.2003 respectively, together with all service and monetary benefits, including the arrears of salary, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11/13https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013
11. Both these writ petitions stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
08.08.2022 Index: Yes Speaking order vsm 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.24496 & 24499 of 2013 M.S.RAMESH,J.
vsm To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Chengalpattu Region, Chengalpattu.
4.The Executive Officer, Thiruverkadu Municipality, Thiruverkadu – 600 077.
Order made in W.P.Nos.24496 and 24499 of 2013 08.08.2022 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis