Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

			For petitioner              :  Mr.P.Premkumar for M/s.S.Vasuki
			For respondents 1 to 4:  Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl.G.P.

Order
(The Order of the Court was made by Elipe Dharma Rao,J)

The Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated 12.1.2004 passed in O.A.No.7053 of 1995 (common order passed in O.A.No.7053 of 1995 and 60 of 2004)

2. The Tribunal held that the petitioner's services were regularised on 10.11.1986 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 22.9.1984, that the Government has recognised the appointment of the petitioner-applicant as Junior Assistant in National Malaria Eradication Programme (for short, NMEP) with effect from 25.6.1984 and therefore, the earlier order of regularisation cannot be restored because, it was passed without jurisdiction and the applicant is also not entitled to get the benefit of earlier order of regularisation passed in 1991. Therefore, the applicant has been regularised as Junior Assistant and the Tribunal directed that the applicant will be entitled for pension and other benefits with effect from the date of her regularisation a per the G.O.Ms.No.996, dated 22.9.1984.

3. The case of the petitioner/applicant is that she was appointed as Junior Assistant in November 1966 in the Primary Health Centre in Ramanathapuram District. Thereafter, she was appointed as Junior Assistant on 8.8.1975 in the NMEP and from 8.8.1975 till the date of retirement on 31.8.2003, the petitioner worked in various capacities and retired as Superintendent.

4. The question of claiming pension from the date of her regularisation, is in dispute, on the ground that the petitioner/applicant was appointed by the authorities when the post of Junior Assistant is covered by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, whereas the applicant was appointed as a candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, the regularisation order issued by the fourth respondent-District Health Officer is without jurisdiction and the regularisation is to be made as per the consent given by the TNPSC. Though the TNPSC gave its consent to regularise the services of the employees under the above said NMEP, based on which G.O.Ms.No.1771, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 13.10.1978 fixing the date of regularisation of those persons who were working as on 1.1.1973, as the petitioner was not working as on 1.1.1973, but working from the date of 8.8.1975, the petitioner was not entitled for regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.1771, though the regularisation order was issued by the fourth respondent-District Health Officer, dated 9.10.1976 with effect from 11.8.1975 and the Probation of the petitioner was also declared by order dated 7.10.1977 and the seniority list was prepared and she was placed at Sl.No.265 through the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 2.7.1980. But subsequently, as per the consent given by the TNPSC to regularise those persons who were working under the above said NMEP and appointed through the Employment Exchange, the Government passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.996, dated 22.9.1984, on the basis of which the services of the petitioner/applicant came to be regularised by letter dated 29.11.1986 with effect from 25.10.1976.

8. It is contended by the petitioner that when the services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 11.8.1975 as per the order of the fourth respondent, dated 9.10.1976, without giving any opportunity, subsequent orders have been passed, changing the date of regularisation of the services of the petitioner, which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and also in violation of the principles of natural justice.

9. It is further contended that though the benefit is conferred under the G.O.Ms.No.1771, dated 13.10.1978, the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as she was not working as on the cut-off date, namely on 1.1.1973. But as seen from the facts and circumstances, the post of Junior Assistant was sanctioned by the Central Government for the year 1958 and she was transferred from the Public Health Centre to the NMEP on 8.8.1975 and she was continuously working from the date of transfer and her services came to be regularised by the order dated 9.10.1976 passed by the fourth respondent/District Health Officer based on the order of the Regional Health Officer, and regularising her services with effect from 11.8.1975. It is seen that she was transferred from the Health Centre to the NMEP on 8.8.1975.

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working from 8.8.1975 in the NMEP. The question of regularisation is within the jurisdiction of the respondents by obtaining the consent from the TNPSC as per the Regulations of the TNPSC and to pass appropriate orders, instead of delaying the regularisation of the services of the petitioner solely on the ground that she was appointed through the Employment Exchange and the consent of the TNPSC is to be taken only to regularise her services.

13. As seen from the above said facts and circumstances, the services of the applicant came to be regularised as early as by proceedings dated 9.10.1976. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 29.11.1986 and finally by proceedings dated 22.1.1991, the date of regularisation of the services of the petitioner came to be modified, more so, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.