Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
M. Muniammal - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 19468 of 2016 and W.M.P. No. 16878 of 2016
Decided On : 20-12-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Prem Narayan.
For the Respondents: Mrs. C. Meera Arumugam, Additional Government Pleader.
Entitlement to special time scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Paycell) Department, dated 01.10.2010, is not impeded by breaks in service for daily wage employees.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Employment Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Paycell) Department, dated 01.10.2010 - The court discussed the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.385 and its application to the petitioner's case, as well as the interpretation of continuous service and artificial breaks in employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a daily wage employee, sought the grant of a special time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Paycell) Department, dated 01.10.2010. The government denied the request citing breaks in the petitioner's service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the special time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.385, despite the breaks in her service, and ordered her reinstatement with immediate effect.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a daily wage employee with breaks in service, was entitled to the special time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Paycell) Department, dated 01.10.2010.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's breaks in service should not impede her entitlement to the special time scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.385, and relied on previous judgments to support this interpretation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the government's order denying the petitioner's entitlement to the special time scale of pay, and directed her reinstatement with immediate effect, without entitlement to arrears of salary for the period of non-engagement.
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned letter issued by the 1st respondent in Letter No.35964/Ni.Va 4(2)/2015-1, dated 09.03.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant special time scale of pay of Rs.1300-3000 + Grade Pay Rs.300 to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Paycell) Department, dated 01.10.2010 retrospectively with effect from 01.10.2010 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
Heard Mr. R. Prem Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C. Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein was inducted as a Gardner on daily wage basis on 22.04.2006. On 10.03.2008, she was ousted from service and thereafter, she was reinstated into service on 21.04.2008. After working for about 12 years, she was again ousted from service on 31.03.2020, owing to Covid Pandemic situation.
3. The Government, in G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Paycell) Department, dated 01.10.2010, had ordered for bringing in daily wage employees in the Government department under special time scale of pay for those who completed 3 years of service. When the petitioner's request in this regard was kept pending, she had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.21041 of 2015 and by an order dated 14.07.2015, the Government was called upon to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time. In consequence to the order of this Court, the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 has been passed, by stating that during the engagement of the petitioner, she was given a break on completion of every 89 days and therefore, since she was not in continuous employment for 3 years, she is not entitled for the special time scale of pay. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Pending the writ petition, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.260, School Education Department, dated 17.12.2018, had brought 324 part-time Sweepers into regular time scale of pay, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.385, dated 01.10.2010.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court and submitted that the break given, after 89 days during the petitioner's engagement as a part-time employee, is deemed to be an artificial break and therefore, the same cannot be brought in as an impediment for denying the special time scale of pay, which has been ordered by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.385, dated 01.10.2010.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that, as per G.O.Ms.No.385, the part-time Sweepers are required to put in 3 years of continuous service and since the petitioner herein had worked only for 89 days and thereafter was given a break of 1 day and that she was not in a sanctioned post, she is not entitled for the special time scale of pay.
7. The issue with regard to imposing an artificial break in the services of a part-time employee had come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1985 (4) SCC 43, wherein, the practice of giving an artificial break in service was deplored and held that the services of a contractual employee cannot be terminated on the ground of such an artificial break.
8. Following the decision in Rattan Lal's case (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court had also granted regularization to contractual employees in the case of K.R. Rajendran and others Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Agriculture and others passed in W.P.(MD) No.8792 of 2018, dated 05.06.2018. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“12....
“7.... (ii). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1985 (4) SCC 43 - (Rattan Lal & Others Vs. State of Haryana &
