Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

G Ganapathimoorthy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Secretary To Government And Others

Madras High Court|03 August, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.08.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.2776 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.7222 and 7223 of 2017 G.Ganapathimoorthy .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, P & AR Department, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9.
3. The Director, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
4. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
5. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore District. .. Respondents (R2 impleaded and Respondents 2 and 3 modified as R3 and R5 vide order dated 27.02.2017 in W.M.P.No.2958 of 2017 in W.P.No.2776 of 2014) Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue Government Order regularising the petitioner with time scale pay as per G.O.Ms.No.242, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply (Panchayat Union) Department dated 10.12.2009 since the date of above G.O. with direction to disburse/pay consequential arrears of salary with 12% interest to the petitioner herein and other incidental benefits.
For Petitioner .. Mr.A.S.Palanisamy For Respondents .. Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1, R2 & R4 Mr.Era.Premnath for R3 ORDER Seeking a direction to the first respondent to issue Government Order regularising the petitioner with time scale pay as per G.O.Ms.No.242, Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply (Panchayat Union) Department dated 10.12.2009 since the date of above Government Order with direction to disburse/pay consequential arrears of salary with 12% interest and other incidental benefits, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Night Watchman in the Perianaivkenpalayam Panchayat Union as per Resolution No.122 dated 17.09.1996 with effect from 01.10.1996. Prior to the said appointment, he was appointed in the same position on 01.11.1995 and was retained as such till 31.08.1996. However, there was a break of service for a period of one month between his earlier appointment in 1995 and subsequent appointment on 01.10.1996. The petitioner would state that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006, wherein the persons who are in service for ten years as on 01.01.2006, their services came to be regularised by applying the said Government Order. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the Government Order, his services were not regularised although he had also completed ten years of service as on 01.01.2006. Even assuming that his appointment is to be taken only from 01.10.1996, yet, he has completed ten years of service in 2006.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also draw this Court's attention to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12252 of 2012, wherein this Court passed a detailed order in similar circumstances on 26.04.2012. Learned counsel would submit that the issue is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in the above said writ petition.
4. Upon notice, Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4 and filed reply and typed set of documents. The learned Special Government Pleader would oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had in fact not completed ten years of service on 01.01.2006 since his appointment was construed to be one only from 01.10.1996. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was originally appointed in 1995 had completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 and it was not open to the respondents to consider the small break in service between two spells of appointment. In the said circumstances, he would submit that the break of one month service is required to be condoned for applying G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006, in its letter and spirit. Learned counsel would also rely on other Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.242 Municipal Administration and Drinking Water Supply (Panchayat Union) Department dated 10.12.2009, wherein the Government had taken a decision to regularise the services of the persons who are working on daily wage basis. He would also rely on the other instructions issued on the subject matter by the Government and he would submit that in all fours, his claim should be considered positively.
5. Though the learned Special Government Pleader opposed the grant of relief, the factum of the petitioner's employment for all these years has not been seriously disputed. In the said circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to allow the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Watchman with reference to G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006. The petitioner would also be entitled whatever the benefits envisaged in the said Government Order and as granted to other similarly placed employees in terms of the said Government Order and also in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in the abovesaid writ proceedings. The said exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.08.2017 Index:Yes/No mmi To
1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9.
2. The Secretary to Government, P & AR Department, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9.
3. The Director, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
4. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
5. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore District.
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
mmi W.P.No.2776 of 2014 03.08.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

G Ganapathimoorthy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Secretary To Government And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
03 August, 2017
Judges
  • V Parthiban