IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19.03.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No.6227 of 2022

1.A.Elanchezhyan

2.S.Ramesh

3.S.Senthilkumar

4.G.Suresh

5.K.Subramani

6.V.Jones Manova

7.K.R.Ganesan

8.D.Palani

9.S.Ravichandran 10.K.Arumugam

11.M.Rajendran ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Engineering Department, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Chennai.

3.Joint Director, Local Fund Audit, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Chennai 600 003. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings E.Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.M-6/2099/2021 dated 16.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently issue a direction directing the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioners ad Drivers w.e.f. 13.12.1995 and grant increments and other service benefits based on the Resolution No.2984/95 dated 13.12.1995 of the Greater Chennai Corporation, which was approved/ratified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplied) Department dated 24.04.1998 together with all consequential service and monetary benefits, within a time-frame as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Bala and Daisy For Respondents : Mr.G.T.Subramanian -----

ORDER

Writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.02.2022, of the 2^nd respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner's to regularise their services from

13.12.1995.

2. The petitioners were initially appointed as temporary drivers through district employment exchange on 02.11.1993. The respondent corporation passed a resolution for absorbing the existing 525 drivers in two phases. The said resolution of the corporation was approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department, dated 24.04.1998. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent by order dated 29.05.1998, regularised the services of the writ petitioners with effect from 29.05.1998. The petitioners therefore submitted representations to regularise their services from the date of resolution of the corporation dated 13.12.1995. The said request of the petitioners was not acceded to and therefore, the petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.No.15056, 18032 and 21441 of 2021, for regularisation of their services with effect from 13.12.1995. In the said writ petitions, this court vide orders dated 27.07.2021, 31.08.2021 and 05.10.2021, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners taking into consideration the proposals submitted by the 3^rd respondent, on merits and in accordance with law. According to the petitioners, even without applying his mind to the facts and the issue before him, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order negating the petitioners request. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. The respondents apart from reiterating the factual aspects of the case submitted that, the petitioners services were regularised as per the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.05.1998, with monetary benefits from the date of confirmation as per the council's resolution No.141 of 1998, dated 19.05.1998. The respondents submitted that the regularisation and monetary benefits claimed by the petitioners from 13.12.1995, in the light of the aforesaid fact could not be accepted. The respondents further relied on the UAC (Mechanical) opinion dated 30.09.2019, stating that the 255 drivers who were absorbed from their confirmation date were not entitled for re-fixation. The UAC (Mechanical) had made it very clear that re-fixation of the date of joining was not possible, as the same attained finality and was not subjected to any appeal or revisi