ORDER

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 & Others), deplored the practice of giving artificial break in service. The state Government is expected to function as a model employer. This proposition continues to hold good even in this age of liberalisation and globalisation. The aforesaid judgment was relied on in the subsequent Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1991) 2 SCC 599-(Sri Rabinarayan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and others). The very same principle has been reiterated in yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611- (MD.Abdul Kadir & Another Vs. Director General o