Contract employees not entitled to parity in reinstatement or disciplinary benefits with regular government servants.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the Third Respondent in Na.Ka.No.23552/Se.B1/2/2016 dated 05.05.2016 and order of the First Respondent passed in Appeal in Letter No.41229/K2/2016-1 dated 24.11.2016 and quash the same with the consequential direction, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.V.Ravikkumar R.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Sundaram, Govt. Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.23552/Se.B1/2/2016 dated 05.05.2016 and order of the First Respondent passed in Appeal in Letter No.41229/K2/2016-1 dated 24.11.2016 and quash the same with the consequential direction, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a) After completing Nursing and Mid Wife course in the year 1995, the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse by proceedings of the second respondent, dated 02.12.2004. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis in the Tamil Nadu Government Service in fixed remuneration of Rs.2,500/- p.m. and she was posted at Government Hospital, Needamangalam, Thiruvarur District, and she joined as Staff Nurse on 09.12.2004.

(b) Due to her ill-health, the petitioner applied for Casual Leave on 12.05.2005 and two staff of the Hospital, namely Arulmozhi (ANM) and Tmt.Tamilarasi (Hospital worker) were arrested by the Police officials under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for the alleged acceptance of bribe of Rs.300/- from one Tmt.Sugantha, W/o Azhagu Thirunavukkarasu. The petitioner was made as one of the accused in the criminal case and she has also obtained anticipatory bail. The petitioner was terminated from service by proceedings dated 09.07.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29477 of 2005 before this Court, and the said Writ Petition was allowed on 26.04.2006, since the impugned order attaches stigma on the petitioner in getting future employment.

(c) The above said order dated 26.04.2006 was not complied with by the respondents and hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition in Cont.No.449 of 2007. In the meanwhile, the Department has filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1028 of 2007. The said Writ Appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.04.2008 observing as follows:

“2. The writ appeal has been admitted and though notice was served on the petitioner, the petitioner has not chosen either in person or through counsel to represent the case. Therefore, we consider it appropriate that the petitioner is not interested in the matter. However, the order of termination is based on the ground of involvement in a criminal case and therefore, if the petitioner succeeds in the criminal case, she can make a representation for reinstatement.

Therefore, we see no reason to set aside the order of termination as per the conditions of the appointment.

The order of the learned single Judge is set aside.”

(d) Thereafter, on 09.03.2016, while dealing with the miscellaneous petition in the said Writ Appeal, the Division Bench observed as follows:

“6. On our query, it is conceded that the copy of the cause list has not been filed. Thus, how it is possible for this Court to verify the factum of non-printing of the name of the counsel for the petitioner?

7. Be that as it may, the subsequent fact being recorded hereinafter as well as the lib