Regularisation of Sanitary Workers shall take effect only from 23.2.2006 and not from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment.

S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. The Petitioners in W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012 are all working as Sanitary Workers in Madurai Municipal Corporation. Some of them were appointed as per Order, dated 9.7.1999 and others were appointed by Orders dated 26.11.1999 & 5.9.2000, respectively. By Order dated 9.7.1999, a total number of 81 persons were appointed, by Order dated 26.11.1999, a total number of 30 persons were appointed and by Order dated 5.9.2000, a total number of 93 persons were so appointed, as Sanitary Workers. These appointments were made as per G.O.Ms. No. 101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.4.1997. Subsequently, Government issued two more Government Orders under G.O.Ms. No. 71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 5.5.1998 and G.O.Ms. No. 21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.2.2006. As per the above two Government Orders, the Petitioners were all regularised as Sanitary Workers with effect from 31.10.2006. Their grievance is that such regularisation ought to have been given with effect from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment and not from 30.10.2006. With this grievance, the Petitioners have come up with W.P.(MD) No. 1083 of 2012.

2. When the above Writ Petition came up for hearing before one of us (Justice S. Nagamuthu), the learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M. Anandan v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, 2012 (1) MLJ 240, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Division Bench had ordered regularisation of the Employees from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, submitted that with a similar plea when three other Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4170 & 4171 of 2011 & 9296 of 2012 came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma), the learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the view taken in M. Anandan's case, referred to above. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for decision to constitute a Larger Bench to examine the correctness of the view taken in M. Anandan's case. The learned Single Judge had framed the following question:

“Whether an employee can claim regularisation from the date of their initial appointment, in absence of any statutory Rules?”.

3. When the matter was placed before a Division Bench, on the Orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, unfortunately, the above question was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petition, without answering the above question referred to by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma. Thus, the said question remained unanswered. However, the Division Bench held that regularisation should take effect only from the date of the Government Order and not from the date on which they had completed three years of service. It was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge (Justice S. Nagamuthu) that in W.A.(MD) No. 729 of 2013, yet another Division Bench had taken the view that such regularisation shall take place from the date on which the Sanitary Workers had completed three years of service from the date of their initial appointment.

4. Since there were conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches, one of us (Justice S. Nagamuthu), directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the following question.

“Whether the view taken by the Division Bench in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4170 & 4171 of 2011 & 9296 of 2012 is the correct view or that of the other Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No. 729 of 2013 is the correct view?”

5. On the order