PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Computer Assistant /Junior Clerk with Computer knowledge in the light of her continuous engagement from January 2013 without altering her service condition in any manner and with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass orders.

For Petitioner: Mr.V.Vijayashankar

For Respondents: Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner as Computer Assistant / Junior Clerk in the light of her continuous engagement from January 2013 without altering her service condition and to pay her the consequential attendant benefits.

The brief facts alleged in the affidavit are as follows :

(a) The petitioner herein was appointed as Data Entry Operator in the office of the Panchayat Union Block, Pennagaram on temporary basis, vide proceedings of the 3rdrespondent, the District Collector, Dharmapuri, dated 12.01.2013, under the Noon Meal Scheme, on a consolidated pay of Rs.9,000/- per month and term of service indicated in the appointment order was for one year.

(b)On completion of one year, the 3rdrespondent gave an artificial break for about 1 or 2 days to the petitioner and once again vide its order dated 22.01.2014, had re-engaged her into service in the very same place i.e., Pennagaram Panchayat Block.

(c)Thereafter, the petitioner's post was redesignated as Computer Assistant and her salary was increased to Rs.12,000/- per month. Vide G.O.(D) No.23 dated 01.02.2025, the nomenclature of Computer Assistant was redesignated as Junior Clerk with Computer Knowledge and the salary was revised to Rs.14,000/- vide order dated 04.02.2025.

(d)While so, the 3rd respondent vide its proceedings dated 28.03.2025 had communicated that the 8 individuals including the petitioner herein who were working on temporary basis as Junior Clerk with Computer Knowledge in the Panchayat Union, need not be disengaged from service but that their salary shall not be paid from the General Fund of Panchayat Union. This proceedings also refers to the communication of the 2ndrespondent dated 28.02.2025, relating to relieving the said 8 individuals from service and the reply of the 3rdrespondent dated 18.03.2025, requiring the 2ndrespondent to certify that the appointment of the said individuals, was not done in an illegal /irregular manner.

(e)The petitioner who is now aged 43 years would submit that since she was appointed in the year 2013 by due selection process and had completed 13 service of service in Pennagaram Panchayat Union and had crossed the age limit of employment, she may not get employment elsewhere, in case of she being disengaged from service by the respondents . Therefore, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 02.03.2025, seeking to regularise her service. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner had been working continuously in Pennagaram Panchyat Union for the past 13 years, the break deliberately given by the respondents for 1 or 2 days after completing one year service and again re-engaging the petitioner into service, cannot deprive the petitioner's claim for regular appointment since this break is aimed to cause an artificial break in the continuous service. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238.

The 3rd respondent has filed a counter inter alia alleging that the petitioner was appointed purely on a contractual basis under the Noon Meal Scheme and not against any sanctioned post. Her services were terminated upon the completion of contract period. The