Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Srimathy, J.
P.Nataraj - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.13638 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10186 of 2016
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Regularization - Retirement Benefits - G.O.Ms.No.125, G.O.Ms.No.21 - The court discussed the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.125 and G.O.Ms.No.21 in the regularization of the petitioner's service and directed the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders of ratification/regularization from the date of appointment by granting exemption, if any rule has been violated. The court emphasized the principles of legitimate explanation and directed the respondents to grant all consequential monetary benefits, pensionary benefits, and other applicable benefits within a period of 12 weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization of his service from 10.03.2001 and retirement benefits. The respondents contended that the petitioner's service was not regularized as per relevant G.O.s and hence, he was not entitled to pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment and regularization predated the ban on recruitment, and the respondents failed to follow proper recruitment processes. The court directed the 1st respondent to regularize the petitioner's service from the date of appointment and grant all consequential benefits.
Issues: Applicability of G.O.Ms.No.125 and G.O.Ms.No.21 in the petitioner's service regularization, entitlement to pensionary benefits, and failure of the respondents to follow proper recruitment processes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of legitimate explanation and directed the 1st respondent to regularize the petitioner's service from the date of appointment by granting exemption, if any rule has been violated. The court held that the failures of the respondents cannot put the petitioner in a disadvantageous position.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the 1st respondent was directed to pass necessary orders of ratification/regularization from the date of appointment by granting exemption, if any rule has been violated. The respondents were directed to grant all consequential monetary benefits, pensionary benefits, and other applicable benefits within a period of 12 weeks.
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Moo.Mu.No. 12147/Na.o.cha(2)/2015, dated 29.05.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and consequentially, to direct the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits of the petitioner taking into consideration of the date of regularization as 10.03.2001 with all consequential benefits including the interest on delayed retirement benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 29.05.2016 and consequentially, to direct the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits of the petitioner taking into consideration of the date of regularization as 10.03.2001 with all consequential benefits including the interest on delayed retirement benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as NMR in the 5th respondent Municipality as Typist in the sanctioned post on consolidated pay vide order, dated 09.03.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's service was regularized on 10.03.2000 and was brought under time scale of pay on 17.04.2001 by the 5th respondent vide his proceedings, dated 17.04.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Revenue Inspector on 08.04.2013 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.11.2014. The contention of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner was paid the benefits of encashment of earn leave and leave on private affairs, the petitioner was not paid with the pensionary benefits so far. Hence, the petitioner submitted repeated representations. Finally, the 4th respondent, vide proceedings, dated 10.04.2015, forwarded proposal to the 3rd respondent. However, no action was taken on the pension proposal. Subsequently, the 4th respondent, vide his impugned proceedings, dated 29.05.2016, has returned the proposal stating that the petitioner's services in the cadre of Typist should be regularized only on 23.02.2006 as per G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 31.12.2014. The petitioner contended that his service was regularized on 10.03.2001 and was brought under Time Scale of Pay. Hence, the reason in the impugned order is unwarranted. The petitioner further contended that G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 31.12.2014, was issued only in furtherance of the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment of this Court made in the case of S.Dhanasekaran & Others Vs Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary & Others reported in 2013 (6) CTC 593. The said G.O. will apply only in respect of the persons whose service was not regularized whereas in the petitioner's service was already regularized. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 31.12.2014, has no application.
3. The petitioner referred to one Mr.Padhamanaban working in Ramanathapuram Municipality has got his service regularized with effect from 27.05.2000, vide G.O.Ms.No.465, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 22.07.2015 and the said Padhamanaban, who is a similarly placed person like the petitioner. Moreover, the G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 31.12.2014, has only prospective application and would not have retrospective effect, which would be evident from the last paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.166, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 31.12.2014. The petitioner further contended that his service was regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999 and the G.O.Ms.No.125 is not the subject matter of Full Bench decision. The petitioner is neither governed by G.O.Ms.No.101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 3
The petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment and were entitled to count only half of their service rendered in consolidated pay posts for pension....
Pre-regularization service - claim of the employee should have been considered immediately if not through pre-regularization services and get counted for the purpose of terminal benefits
The government servant is entitled to salary and other service benefits attached to the post only from the date of appointment and not prior to the said date of appointment.
Employees completing five years of service before 25.11.1993 are entitled to pension benefits under G.O.Ms.No.212, without arrears of pay.
Engagement on a daily wage basis does not entitle an individual to reinstatement or regularization.
Regularization of service is the exclusive domain of the employer, and temporary and casual employees cannot seek regularization. Government orders come into effect from the date of issuance unless s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
