Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
B. SURESH - Appellant
Vs.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - Respondent
W.P. No. 11858 of 2010
Decided on : 12-01-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravi Shanmugam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Jaya Prakash, Spl G.P.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Service - Temporary in service without any break or adverse remarks - Petitioner since had participated in the competitive examination conducted by TNPSC for the post of Steno Typist, he had been selected and was appointed as Steno Typist at the respondent department, the date on which he joined service as Steno Typist on permanent basis - Held, Therefore, only in that context, the Honble Apex Court in the Judgment cited supra has given the finding that the giving retrospective regularization to the promotees from the date of the initial appointment of such promotees as the starting point of their seniority, who had been subsequently, appointed on permanent basis as their probation also would have been declared so, well before the probation of the petitioner, may not be justifiable - Therefore, only in those circumstances, the Honble Apex Court in the Judgment cited supra has given a finding that the retrospective regularization of the promotees from the date of initial appointment of such promotees as the starting point of their seniority could be erroneous and contrary to the well-established principles relating to regularization and seniority - Therefore, the Honble Apex Court in fact disapproved such course of action adopted by the Government - As such the retrospective regularization giving undue benefit of seniority for those who had been given such benefit would be dehors of the Rule and therefore, such benefit has been negated by the said decision of the Honble Apex Court - Petition dismissed.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
1. The prayer is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent herein in Letter No.5999/E7/2009-7, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E7) Department, dated 10.3.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularize the petitioner period of temporary services as Steno-Typist from 27.9.1989 FN to 23.8.1994 AN as duty for all service benefits and direct the respondents herein to issue orders retrospectively regularizing his service from 27.9.1989 with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner was temporarily appointed under 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules as Steno Typist on 27.9.1989 at the office of Deputy Registrar, Public Distribution System, Udgamandalam. As such, the petitioner also joined in service on 27.09.1989. From that date, he had been working continuously, though temporary in service without any break or adverse remarks.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner since had participated in the competitive examination conducted by TNPSC for the post of Steno Typist, he had been selected and was appointed as Steno Typist at the respondent department on 24.8.1994, the date on which he joined service as Steno Typist on permanent basis. Therefore, only on the previous day i.e., on 23.8.1994, he was relieved from the erstwhile office where he was working and the very next day without any break he joined service as Steno Typist on permanent basis. Thereafter, his probation was declared by November 1996. Though at the time of relieving from the earlier service as Steno Typist (temporary basis), the petitioner was drawing Rs. 1470/-, subsequently, on his appointment on permanent basis, his pay was fixed only as Rs. 1200/-. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a representation on 12.10.1994 to the respondents to regularise the period of the petitioner's service from 27.9.1989 to 23.8.1994 and to count the said period for the purpose of all service benefits including seniority, pay fixation, increment etc., His request was rejected in November 1994 by the Additional Collector and thereafter, again he gave representation on 03.07.1995 to the second respondent for the very same relief of regularising his services from 27.9.1989 to 23.8.1994. The second respondent also had rejected the request of the petitioner on 13.1.1997. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred original application in O.A.No.3522/1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.35908 of 2006. In the said writ petition, this Court by order dated 29.9.2009 directed the respondents, especially, the Government to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within a time limit. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the first respondent passed the impugned order on 10.3.2010 by which the petitioner's request was rejected by adducing the reasons that both G.O. Ms. No. 85, P and AR Department, dated 20.2.1990 as well as the Government letter of the department of P and AR dated 05.2.1996 would not be applicable for the facts of the case of the petitioner and therefore, the request of the petitioner was not considered and was rejected. Challenging the said order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has come out with the aforesaid prayer.
4. Heard both sides.
5. M. Ravi Shanmugam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by a decision of this Court where a Division Bench of this Court passed an order in W.A. No. 928/2009 on 30.8.2010. In the said order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a similar issue was considered and decided in favour of the employee. Therefore, his foremost submission is that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered.
6. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also make su
