JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.06.2018 made in W.P.No.1636 of 2013.)

1. The instant Intra-Court Appeal relates to the plight of the poor Male Attendant in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, who has been tossed from 1992 in fighting for his rights by spending his life in litigation.

2. The respondent, who is the writ petitioner, joined a Non-Government Organization (NGO), namely, Family Planning Association of India on 16.11.1984 as a Male Attendant, Urban Family Welfare Centre, Saligramam, in a Health Project. His services were confirmed on 01.06.1985. The NGO had expressed its unwillingness to continue the project due to the poor performance of the same and requested the Population Project Co-ordinator, Chennai Corporation, to take over the project from 01.03.1992 onwards along with the staff to prevent sudden retrenchment of the staff working in the project.

2.1. Accordingly, another voluntary organization, namely, Association for Community Welfare Education and Development took over the new project and appointed the retrenched staff of the Family Welfare Association of India, who were willing to join in the posts in the new project. Unfortunately, the writ petitioner did not fit in the staffing pattern and hence, he was terminated from the project on 04.05.1992.

2.2. His challenge to the same in W.P.No.8676 of 1992 was allowed by this Court on 29.09.1999 making it clear that “the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any backwages and attendant benefits and he is not entitled to get continuity in service”. Thus, this Court had directed the Association for Community Welfare Education and Development to provide a suitable post equivalent to the post held by the writ petitioner previously at the time of his termination. The Government was also ordered not to raise any objection with regard to over-age, as this Court had directed that a supernumerary post has to be created to accommodate the petitioner.

2.3. Challenging the said order, the appellant herein filed W.A.No.157 of 2001, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.12.2006. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made a representation to the appellants on 12.12.2007 to comply with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.8676 of 1992. However, the appellants herein filed Review Application No.44 of 2009 against the dismissal of the intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed on 17.06.2009. Despite the same, the order of the learned Single Judge was not complied with and hence, the writ petitioner/ respondent was constrained to file Contempt Petition No.1095 of 2009, pursuant to which, the appellants herein issued an order of appointment to the petitioner on 08.02.2010. The contempt petition was closed, in view of the compliance of the writ Court’s order, however, liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to workout his grievances against the order posting before the appropriate forum.

2.4. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made a request to the appellants to grant him the service benefits for the period from 29.09.1999, i.e., from the date of disposal of W.P.No.8676 of 1992 till 09.02.2010 and also consequential promotional benefits to him. Once again, the appellant did not consider the same driving the petitioner to this Court in W.P.No.20336 of 2010 seeking a Mandamus, directing the appellant to consider his representations and modify the conditions stipulated in the order of appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the appellants to consider the representation dated 24.04.2010 on its merits and as per law within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the writ petitioner was directed to furnish certain documents for taking further action in the matter. Though the writ petitioner had complied with all the requirements, there was no action taken by the appellants and hence, once again the writ petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.586