IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.A.Nos.1583 & 1584 of 2012 D.Prabhu .. Appellant in both the Writ Appeals -vs-
1. The Director of Public Libraries 737/1, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 .. 1st Respondent in WA 1584 of 2012
2. The District Library Officer Coimbatore District Library 1232, Big Bazaar Street 2nd Respondent in WA 1584 of 2012 Coimbatore-1 .. & sole respondent in WA 1583 of 2012 Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 21.02.2012 made in W.P.Nos.33377 of 2005 & 33782 of 2007.
For Appellant :: Mr.R.Prem Narayan For Respondent(s) :: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) The writ appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The appellant/writ petitioner filed the writ petitions praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise his services as full time Librarian with effect from 1.5.96 and to extend all monetary and other service benefits; to regularise his services as Librarian Grade III retrospectively from 1.5.96, as Librarian Grade II from May 2000, as Librarian Grade I from May 2001 and post him to the post of Inspector of Libraries/District Library Officer together with all monetary, attendant, service benefits, continuity of service, promotional benefits and other privileges; respectively.
4. The stand of the respondents is that although as per G.O.Ms.No.66, Educational Science and Technology Department dated 30.1.96, the State Government sanctioned 625 village libraries, subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.50 School Education Department dated 11.4.2003, the State Government sanctioned 867 more village libraries, however, temporary part time Librarians working in the libraries were paid a consolidated amount of Rs.505/- per month and they were permitted to continue their job in the upgraded library with an enhanced consolidated pay of Rs.1010/- per month temporarily. Thereafter, they were absorbed as village Librarians. Insofar as the appellant/writ petitioner is concerned, he was working in the village library as part time village librarian under the control of the Branch Library. After registration of names in the District Employment Exchange and their names being sponsored, some of the qualified persons were selected as village Librarians.
5. The learned single Judge, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, rejected the case of the writ petitioner for regularisation of his services. It was also noted that there is also a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.250 School Education Department dated 13.11.2005 directing the absorption of Village Librarians who were working as part-time Librarians, appointed prior to 30.1.96 and who had completed five years of service. Since the appellant's appointment was subsequent to the Government Order dated 30.1.96, he cannot be considered. Though some of the part time Librarians who were not recruited through the District Employment Exchange, but appointed prior to 30.1.96 were absorbed as Village Librarians, as per G.O.Ms.No.250 dated 13.11.2005, there was no proposal for appointing the part time rural Librarian as Village Librarian and the Director of Public Libraries was also suitably instructed in this regard.
6. In the recent judgment in Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department v. A.Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113, the Apex Court, in furtherance to the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, has clarified that the part time employees have no right to seek for regularisation, as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. In this context, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment of the Apex Court read as follows:-
“8. Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularisation is missing from the rule book and regularisation casts huge financial implications on public exchequer.
12. In the present case, the respondent herein was engaged to fetch water, to sweep and other connected menial works for one or two hours in a day as part-time masalchi. The post of part-time masalchi is not included in Class IV or V of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. Further a part-time masalchi cannot be treated as equivalent to the post of masalchi (full- time basis) because the post of part-time masalchi does not come under the purview of service rules. The respondent herein was only a part-time masalchi and hence the question of applying G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006, which is applicable only to the daily wage full-time employees, does not arise.
16. In State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429, this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.”
This apart, G.O.Ms.No.250 dated 13.11.2005 has also not been challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner.
7. In the light of the above, we do not find fault with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals fail and they are dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 are also dismissed. No costs.
Index : yes (H.G.R.,J.) (G.J.,J.) 04.08.2017 ss To
1. The Director of Public Libraries 737/1, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002
2. The District Library Officer Coimbatore District Library 1232, Big Bazaar Street Coimbatore-1 HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.
AND G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
ss W.A.Nos.1583 & 1584 of 2012 04.08.2017