The Original Application in O.A.No.392 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.8562 of 2007 before this Court.
2. Heard Mr.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Gang Coolie in Pernamallur Panchayat Union by an order dated 04.10.1974 by the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Pernamallur, the third respondent herein. The petitioner is in possession of driving license for driving Light Motor Vehicles and passed VIII standard. The regular driver of the Panchayat Union i.e., Mr.B.R.Raja Kanni, died on 10.04.1994 and thereafter, the petitioner was utilised for driving the Light Motor Vehicles in the Panchayat Union. The petitioner is a regular Gang Coolie and he was in receipt of Rs.750-12-870-14-940 scale of pay. The Commissioner for the Panchayat Union, the third respondent herein, wrote a letter in e.f.m1.2563/95 dated 24.08.1995 to the District Collector of Thiruvannmalai, the second respondent herein, requesting to promote the petitioner as Jeep Driver, since he was driving the Jeep from 10.04.1994 i.e., from the death of regular Jeep Driver and since, he possessed the prescribed qualification to hold the post of Driver. The Commissioner of Panchyat Union, the third respondent herein, also stated that Resolution No.35, dated 24.08.1995 was passed by the Panchayat Union for promoting the petitioner as Jeep Driver from Gang Coolie.
4. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued proceedings in Na.Ka.c.No.3157/96 dated 02.06.1996, directing the third respondent to relieve the petitioner from the Panchayat Union, so as to drive the Jeep for him, since the post of Driver was vacant in his office and he was not able to go to camps in the absence of a driver. Based on the said order, the petitioner was sent to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, to drive jeep for him.
5. The second respondent, wrote a letter dated 15.10.1998 to the first respondent, seeking clarification in the matter of appointing the petitioner as Driver on regular basis. In the said letter, the second respondent states that the petitioner worked as a Jeep Driver for the Revenue Divisional Officer and also for the Tahsildar, Vandavasi, during the election period. It is also stated that for the past two years, the petitioner was working as driver in 'ARIVOLI IYAKKAM'. In the mean time, the second respondent passed an order dated 10.05.1999, in proceeding Na.Ka.B.C. 9461/99, permitting the third respondent Commissioner to promote the petitioner as driver in the scale of Rs.3200-85-4900. Accordingly, the third respondent passed an order dated 05.08.1999, appointing the petitioner as driver in Rs.3200-85-4900 scale.
6. In these circumstances, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2002, reverting the petitioner from the post of Jeep Driver to Gang Coolie. It is stated therein that the first respondent refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as a Jeep Driver from Gang Coolie vide his order dated 07.12.2001. The impugned order is solely based on the said order 07.12.2001 of the first respondent.
7. The petitioner filed O.A.No.392 of 2002 before the Tribunal and obtained interim order against reversion. The interim order is still in force.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been serving as Jeep Driver from 10.04.1994 i.e., for the past 15 years, the first respondent was not justified in refusing to get necessary orders from the Government for appointing him as a Jeep Driver. When it is admitted that the services of the petitioner was utilised by the Panchayat Union as regular driver and by the Revenue Divisional Officer when there was no driver in his office and also in 'ARIVOLI IYAKKAM', the Government is bound to pass necessary orders permitting him to continue as driver from the year 1994.
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the order of the first resopondent dated 07.12.2001, based on which the impugned order was passed, is in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.262, Rural Development Department, dated 15.12.1998. The learned counsel submits that as per the G.O.Ms.No.262, the tractor drivers, road roller drivers, sanitary workers, night watchmen, record clerks and Mechanics, who possess the required qualification, were permitted to be appointed as Jeep Driver by the Panchayat Union. While the aforesaid categories were permitted to be appointed as Jeep Drivers, the category of Gang Coolie was not mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.262.
10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that instead of refusing to approve the proposals for regularisation of the petitioner in the post of driver, the first respondent ought to have sent the proposals to the Government for necessary orders, when the first respondent entertained any doubt about the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.262. The learned counsel also points out that the 'Gang Coolie' has to be read into G.O.Ms.No.262, since the purpose of G.O.Ms.No.262 was to appoint categories like watchmen, sanitary workers, etc. as Driver. Even otherwise, the Government has necessary powers to pass appropriate orders, permitting the petitioner to continue as driver.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the Panchayat Union passed a resolution for appointing the petitioner as a driver. He was, in fact, utilised as a driver on the death of the regular driver i.e., from 10.04.1994, by the Panchyat Union. Thereafter, when the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Panchyat Union to send the petitioner to drive his vehicle, he was sent there to drive his vehicle. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that he was also utilised in 'ARIVOLI IYAKKAM' for driving the jeep. He was also utilised for driving the Light Motor Vehicle for the Thasildar, Vandavasi. All the authorities namely, the Panchayat Union Council, the Commissioner for Panchayat Union, the District Collector recommended for his appointment as a Jeep Driver. In fact, the reply of the respondents states in Paragraph-3 that the District Collector recommended in the Proceedings No.9461/99Pc1 dated 10.05.1999 for appointment of the petitioner as a temporary driver, pending further orders from the concerned authorities, taking into account his good services and experiences as Jeep Driver.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the Salary Certificate of the petitioner, dated 20.08.1999, issued by the third respondent, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is working as a Jeep Driver as on today. Hence, the petitioner has been serving as a Driver for the past fifteen years.
13. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly justified in stating that the purpose of G.O.Ms.No.262 is not to exclude the persons like Gang Coolies when the other categories of similar nature are permitted to be appointed as drivers by giving preference. Here is a case, where the petitioner was utilised by various authorities for driving jeep.
14. In such circumstances, the third respondent is hereby directed to send proposals to the fourth respondent for regularisation of the services of the petitioner as driver from 10.04.1994 and the fourth respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from 10.04.1994, taking into account the aforesaid facts. The third respondent is directed to send the said proposals within a period for four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the fourth respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
15. With the above direction the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
rns To
1. The Director of Rural Development Department of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai -15
2. The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannmalai.
3. The Commissioner, Pernamallur Panchayat Union, Pernamallur Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamilnadu Rural Development of Panchayat Fort St.George Chennai - 9