Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
P. Venkatesan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 19487 of 2022 W.M.P. Nos. 18783 & 18784 of 2022
Decided On : 06-03-2024
Regularization - Service Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 06.08.2012 - The court discussed the applicability of the government order regarding regularization of service and the conditions to be fulfilled by the petitioner. The court also referred to a similar case where the services of temporary daily wage employees were regularized after serving for more than 10 years. The judgment highlighted the exploitation of daily rated employees by the government and emphasized the need to stop such exploitation. The court concluded that the impugned order removing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained and quashed the same.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was removed from service after a dispute regarding the regularization of his service under G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 06.08.2012. The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled the conditions for regularization, but the respondent argued otherwise.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had joined service on 01.11.1996, which was prior to the date mentioned in the government order for regularization. The court also referred to a similar case where the services of temporary daily wage employees were regularized after serving for more than 10 years. The court concluded that the impugned order removing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained and quashed the same.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioner for regularization of service under G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 06.08.2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to stop the exploitation of daily rated employees by the government and held that the impugned order removing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The impugned order removing the petitioner from service was quashed, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, with backwages and continuity of service, monetary, and other attendant benefits.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third and fourth respondents in connection with the order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.PA5/3579/2016 dated 06.07.2022, and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with full back wages, continuity of service and consequently regularize the service of the petitioner with all consequent service, monetary and attendant benefits.)
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 06.07.2022, thereby removed the petitioner from service.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Works Assistant in Kaveripakkam Panchayat Union, Ranipet District on a daily wage basis. The first respondent issued G.O.(Standing)No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 06.08.2012, to regularize the service of the petitioner on his completion of more than ten years of service along with monetary benefits. The third respondent by its communication dated 04.09.2012, had regularized his service and appointed him as Record Clerk in Kaniyambadi Panchayat Union, Vellore District. Accordingly, on 04.09.2012, he was absorbed in regular service with regular time scale of pay.
3. While being so, the third respondent by his communication dated 28.07.2014, informed the details of daily wages workers working in Vellore district panchayat union, who were appointed prior to 26.03.1997, for verification and confirmation of their service records. In that communication, the date of appointment of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.07.2001, though the petitioner was appointed as early as on 01.11.1996. Accordingly, the third respondent published the seniority list on 10.03.2020 to the post of Record Clerk in the district level in which, the petitioner name was placed at Sl.No.8. He was also found eligible in the subsequent seniority list dated 28.03.2022 and his name was placed in Sl.No.3. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to continue in service as a Record Clerk.
4. In the mean time, the petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 31.12.2021, alleging that the petitioner had joined in the service after 1997 and as such, the petitioner failed to fulfill the certain eligibility conditions for regularizing his service. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 04.01.2022. However, without considering the same, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 06.07.2022. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition with the above said prayer.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material placed before this Court.
6. On perusal of counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent revealed that while the petitioner submitted his explanation, he failed to produce any evidence to show that he was appointed on daily wage basis prior to 01.07.2001. Therefore, he had not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 06.08.2012. Therefore, the petitioner was removed from service.
7. In the similar mater, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Shanmugam & ors Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors in W.A.No.1458 of 2019 dated 20.01.2023, held as follows:-
“20. We have come across several cases where such temporary daily wage employees are removed from services and replaced by others depending upon the political situations relevant at that point of time. Fortunately, for these appellants despite swinging of the the political pedulum, they have been continuing to work. Even though their initial service was protected by the order of the Tribunal, atleast from 01.12.2010 till date for nearly 12 years, there was no protection for their services by means of any order of Court.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court even after the judgment i
AI
The judgment establishes the principle that the exploitation of daily rated employees by the government should be stopped, and the services of such employees, who have served for more than 10 years, ....
Irregular or illegal appointments cannot be regularised, and the benefit of regularisation already granted by the government is a concession that cannot be extended further.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of regularization of the petitioners' services from the completion of 10 years of service in 2002 was discriminatory and contrary t....
Part-time or temporary employees appointed to permanent posts in Tamil Nadu Basic Service are entitled to regularisation upon completing 10 years of service, irrespective of appointment nomenclature.
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
