The Writ Petitioners have filed a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners service on completion of the 10 years 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019 service on daily wages as per the recommendation of the 6th respondent to the 4th respondent in Letter Na.Ka.No. 49/2010, dated 22.07.2010 in view of the G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 issued by the first respondent and to confer all the service and monetary benefits in the time scale of pay. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.06.2017 with a direction to the regularize the petitioners service on completion of 10 years of service on daily wages with all other monetary and service benefits in the time scale of pay within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The petitioners alleging the disobedience of this order has filed the present Contempt Petition to punish the contemnors.
2. The petitioners counsel submitted that the contemners / respondents have regularized six petitioners and has failed to regularize five petitioners. Therefore, the contemnors have committed contempt and prayed to punish contemnors. The petitioners counsel also contended that the regularization was granted from the date of the government order and not from the date of completion of 10 years of service and alleged this Court has directed the 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019 respondents to regularize on completion of 10 years.
3. The respondents have filed compliance affidavit stating the contemnors have complied with an order as far as six petitioners are concerned. The six petitioners have completed 10 years of service and have come under the consideration zone and therefore they were regularized. However, the rest of the five petitioners have completed below 10 years and therefore, they are not coming under the consideration zone and therefore, they are not regularized. The petitioners 7 to 11 viz., K. Subbiah, K. Sudalaimuthu, V. Ponraj, V. Thirumani, S. Chellathurai have worked less than 10 years and have furnished the following details:
a. The 7th petitioner has not worked during the year 1997 and 1998 and has rendered only 8 years of service.
b. The 8th petitioner has joined in the year 1994 and has worked from the year 1994 to 2004, but the record shows he has worked only for 31 days in 1995; 29 days in 1997; 58 days in 2001 and has rendered only 8 years of service.
c. The 9th petitioner has worked 21 days in the year 1993;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019 58 days in 2001 and has rendered 8 years of service. d. The 10th petitioner has worked for 30 days in 1995; 30 days in 2005 and has rendered 8 years of service. e. The 11th petitioner has not worked during the year 1997 and 1998 and has worked for 58 days in the year 2001 and has rendered 7 years of service.
4. Since the petitioners 7 to 11 have not completed 10 years of service as per record they were not granted regularization. It is also submitted that the G.O. Ms. No. 74 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 27.06.2013 under clause 6 (vii) wherein it is stated “the services of the full time daily wage employees who have completed 10 years of service after 01.01.2006 shall not be regularized”. Therefore, the service after 01.01.2006 was not considered. The contemnors have relied on a Division Bench judgment rendered in W.A. (MD) No. 884 and 885 / 2015 has held as under:
“4.The appellants can claim the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006, only if they can show that 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019 they were working on daily wages basis and had completed more than 10 years service as on 01.01.2006. They can claim regularisation only if this requirement of 10 years of service is fulfilled. It is beyond doubt that the appellants do not fulfil the said criteria.
5.It is true that they have been engaged by the Department on and off. It is not a case of completion of 10 years of service as on 01.01.2016. Inasmuch as the condition precedent set out in G.O.M.S.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 is not fulfilled, the appellants are not entitled to any relief. Even though the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed, this Court expresses the hope that the appellants would continue to be engaged on the same daily wages basis as they are presently employed. Merely because, these writ appeals are dismissed that would not afford a ground for ousting them.
6.With this observation, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.”
5. It is submitted that the petitioners 7 to 11 have already been brought within the purview of G.O. Ms. No. 233 Public Works (C2) Department, dated 06.12.2019 for payment of wages of NMRs as finalized by the screening committee. Therefore, this Court is convinced the contemnors / respondents have complied with the order of this Court and there is no 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019 deliberate disobedience.
6. The second contention of the petitioners that the petitioners 1 to 6 were regularized from the date of order of the regularization and not from the date of completion of 10 years. The Learned Additional Advocate General had submitted that the petitioners would come under the zone of consideration once they have completed 10 years of service. It is not necessary that they ought to be regularized from the next date of completion of 10 years. In fact in all regularization cases the Government has regularized the employees from the date of issuance of the regularization order and not from the date of appointment or from the date of completion of 10 years. The respondents have relied on Full Bench Judgment reported in 2013 (6) CTC 593 (FB) (S. Dhanasekaran and 24 others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort. St. George, Chennai and others), wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench has categorically held in para 28 (iii) as follows: 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019
28) ...
(iii) Those Sanitary Workers, who were appointed as G.O.Ms.Nos.101, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.04.1997 or absorbed as per G.O.Ms.No.71, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 05.05.1998, are all governed by G.O.Ms.No.21, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 23.02.2006, in respect of their regularization in service and such regularization shall take effect only from 23.02.006 and not from the date on which they had completed three years of service from the date of their initial entry into service.
7. Therefore, this Court is convinced the regularization granted from the date of the G.O is valid and there is contempt and hence, the Contempt Petition is dismissed.
8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents may consider the claim of the petitioners 7 to 11. It is seen from the records that the petitioners 7 to 11 are working as “Contract Employees” under contractor from 2006 onwards in the same department. It is submitted by the 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019 respondents that based on the observation passed by the Division Bench in W.A. (MD). Nos. 884 and 885 of 2015 the respondents would continue to engage the petitioners as “Contract Employees” as they are presently employed. Moreover, the respondents have stated that the said petitioners were brought within the purview of G.O. Ms. No. 233 Public Works (C2) Department, dated 06.12.2019 for payment of wages of NMRs as finalized by the screening committee. However, this Court observe that in future if there is any policy formulated for regularization, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners claim positively.
07.01.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes trp 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P(MD).No.644 of 2019 S.SRIMATHY, J trp Pre – Delivery Order made in CONT.P.(MD)No.644 of 2019 07.01.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis