Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
S. Sivakumar & Others – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Tr) VII Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another – Respondent
W.P.Nos. 14782 and 19961 of 2020 & W.M.P.Nos. 18366, 18367, 24641 & 24642 of 2020
Decided On : 03-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:V. Vijayashankar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: J. Pothiraj, Spl. Govt. Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of contract workers to seek regularization of their services based on positive recommendations and lack of evidence to prove alleged malpractices.

Headnote:
Regularization of Services - Article 226 of Constitution of India - 20.05.2014, 18.12.2017 - The judgment discusses the issue of regularization of services of petitioners who were engaged as Programmers/System Analysts in various Regional Transport Offices. The court analyzed the proposals forwarded by the 2nd respondent in 2014 and 2017, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, and the contentions of both parties. The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought and directed the government to consider their case positively and pass an order for regularization of their services within two months.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a direction to regularize their services as Programmers/System Analysts in various Regional Transport Offices, citing proposals forwarded by the 2nd respondent in 2014 and 2017. The respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners were not direct employees and their works were purely contract in nature.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought and directed the government to consider their case positively and pass an order for regularization of their services within two months.
Issues: The main issue was the regularization of the petitioners' services, with the respondents contending that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners were not direct employees and their works were purely contract in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought based on the proposals forwarded by the 2nd respondent and the lack of evidence to prove the malpractices alleged by the respondents.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were allowed, and a direction was issued to the government to consider the case of the petitioners positively and pass an order for regularization of their services within two months.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the light of the proposals forwarded by the 2nd respondent in its Letter No.08075/R2/2014 dated 20.05.2014 and Letter R.No.37816/54/2017 dated 18.12.2017 with all attendant benefits.)

The petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions, seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the light of the proposals forwarded by the 2nd respondent in its Letter No.08075/R2/2014 dated 20.05.2014 and Letter R.No.37816/54/2017 dated 18.12.2017 with all attendant benefits.

2. The issue involved in these petitions is one and the same and they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken up from W.P.No.14782 of 2020, which read as follows:

i) The petitioners joined various Regional Transport Offices (RTOs) in the State as Programmer / System Analysts, after acquiring qualifications either in B.E.Computer Science / BCA or B.Sc. Computer Science and the process of computerisation was undertaken through agency. Initially, one M/s.Maruti Computer Agency was entrusted to supply manpower and the petitioners were engaged through the said agency in the year 2005 and since then, they have been working continuously;

ii) The 2nd respondent, taking note of the continuous workload in the Transport Department, sent a proposal dated 20.05.2014 to the 1st respondent for absorption of the petitioners on a regular basis as done in the other Departments, such as CTO Offices, Municipal Administration Department, etc. Though the said proposal was received at the Office of the 1st respondent, there was no steps taken to regularize the services of the petitioners on a regular scale of pay, on account of which, the 2nd respondent once again sent yet another proposal dated 18.12.2017 for sanction of regular full time posts of System Analyst Programmer and DEO;

iii) It is submitted that even though certain queries were raised by the 1st respondent on 12.01.2018, which were also suitably replied by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 01.02.2018, there was no progress thereafter in respect of regularization of the services of the petitioners and the 1st respondent has been sitting over the proposal for the past two years;

iv) It is further submitted that the contract assigned to M/s.Maruti Computers was re-assigned to another Contractor, namely, New Life Placement and the contract awarded to them came to an end in the year 2019 itself and the petitioners, despite having worked for more than 10 to 15 years and having sent numerous representations, have not been regularized and therefore, they are before this Court with the aforesaid directions;

v) The petitioners have been made to work on contract basis for more than 10 to 15 years and the act of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners, more particularly in the Transport Department, is against the settled proposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioners, after having acquired sufficient qualification in the field, have been working on contract basis with the fond hope of getting their services regularized and the 1st respondent may be directed to act on the proposal as expeditiously as possible.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been, inter alia stated as under:

i) These writ petitions are not maintainable at the first instance, as the Writ Petitioners are not direct employees of the 2nd respondent and they have not been recruited either through employment exchange or TNPSC and their works are purely contract in nature and the petitioners themselves admitted that they were engaged through a manpower called M/s.Maruti Computers Agency from the year 2005 and worked upto 31.12.2018;

ii) In the counter, it is stated that the proposal sent by the Transport Commissione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document