Madras High Court
The Director Of Village Panchayat vs V.Thanumoorthy ... 1St on 27 January, 2021
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.The Director of Village Panchayat,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat,
(Village Panchayats),
Collectorate,
Nagercoil.
3.The District Collector,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3
Vs.
1.V.Thanumoorthy ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.The Executive Officer,
Palloor Village Panchayat,
Palloor, Poothatty Post,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Thippiramalai Village Panchayat,
Kannan Vilai, Karungal Post,
Kanyakumari District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
4.The Executive Officer,
Mullanganavilai Village Panchayat and Post,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 4 to 6
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 13.02.2014 made in W.P(MD)No.10666 of 2008
on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Additional Advocate General.
Assisted by
Mr.P.Mahendran,
Additional Government Pleader.
For RR 1 to 4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
The Government has preferred the present Writ Appeal,
challenging the order, dated 13.02.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.10666
of 2008.
2.The first respondent/writ petitioner, who was a Hand Pump
Fitter / Helper appointed on a daily wage basis by the Commissioner,
Killiyoor Panchayat Union on 03.06.1996, was seeking to get his
service regualized as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.55,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated
15.06.2006. He has completed 10 years of service. The above said
G.O is applicable to the persons, who have put in service for more
than 10 years from 1982 to 01.04.1997.
3.According to the first respondent / writ petitioner, out of 15
persons, who were recommended by the third respondent, services of
13 persons have been regularized, only the first respondent / writ
petitioner and one P.Wilson were not considered by the authorities,
despite they possessed the required qualification. The first respondent
/ writ petitioner further stated that despite they possessed the
required qualification and completed service for 10 years and also the
appointment was in the year 1996, his service should also have been
regularized on par with the Hand Pump Fitter / Helper of other Unions.
Hence, the first respondent / writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition in
W.P(MD)No.10666 of 2008 for a Writ of Mandamus, seeking a
direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to regularize his service from
03.06.1996 and direct the respondents to appoint the first respondent
/ writ petitioner as Office Assistant under any of the Panchayat Union.
4.The relief sought for by the first respondent / writ petitioner
was seriously opposed by the respondents therein contending that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
first respondent / writ petitioner did not have complete 10 years of
continuous service as Hand Pump Fitter / Helper. Though the third
respondent had produced his attendance register showing that the
first respondent / writ petitioner was appointed on 01.06.1996 and
had service till 30.09.2003 with intervening break up service, he could
not have been regularized as per the above said G.O.
5.The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, had allowed
the Writ Petition holding that the first respondent / writ petitioner is
eligible to be regularized. Aggrieved by the same, the Government has
preferred the present Writ Appeal.
6.Mr.Sricharan Rangaran, learned Additional Advocate General,
who represented on behalf of the appellants, produced a copy of the
letter issued by the Block Development Officer, Killiyoor, to the District
Collector, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in Letter No.A1/2071/2006, dated
27.10.2006. The Letter refers to four of the employees including that
of P.Wilson referred to by the first respondent / writ petitioner and the
first respondent / writ petitioner himself. The Block Development
Officer has specifically stated that the order of appointment of the first
respondent / writ petitioner was not with the Block Development
Office. The letter also specifically had mentioned the days of service
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
put in by the first respondent / writ petitioner. The first respondent /
writ petitioner's service within the period mentioned in the above said
G.O is from June 1996 to June 1997 which is approximately only one
year. Similarly, the other person referred to by the first respondent /
writ petitioner, viz., P.Wilson, had worked between November, 1992
and June 1997, for about 6 years and 11 months. Since the first
respondent / writ petitioner had not completed 10 years of continuous
service as Hand Pump Fitter / Helper for the period from 1982 to
01.04.1997, his name was not recommended by the Commissioner of
Killiyoor Panchayat Union for regularization.
7.In similar circumstances, the case of the above referred
P.Wilson was also not considered by the Division Bench of this Court in
P.Wilson Vs. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj, Panagal Building reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 3491,
which reads as follows:-
“7.A reading of the Government Order clearly
shows that the said Government Order is applicable
only to 978 persons, who have been working from 1982
to 01.04.1997 and completed ten years of service on or
before 01.04.1997. Admittedly, the appellant was
engaged only from 01.04.1992 to 30.04.2004 and he
has been working with intermittent breaks and from the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
particulars furnished in the counter affidavit, it is clear
that the appellant had worked only for six years and
eleven months as on 30.04.2004. Therefore, the
learned Judge has rightly declined to quash the
impugned order. We see no reason to interfere with the
order of the learned Judge, dated 25.04.2013 made in
W.P(MD)No.1437 of 2010. Hence, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
there is no representation on behalf of the respondents and perused
the materials available on record.
9.In the instant case, the first respondent / writ petitioner has
worked only for an year and therefore, the Commissioner of Killiyoor
Panchayat Union had rightly not recommended his name. The learned
Single Judge had computed the entire period even after June 1997
and arrived at a conclusion that the first respondent / writ petitioner
had completed 10 years of service, which is patently wrong. As held
supra, when the first respondent / writ petitioner had served only for
less than a year, his services cannot be regularized as per
G.O.Ms.No.55, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5)
Department, dated 15.06.2006.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
10.In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, dated 13.02.2014 in W.P(MD)No.10666 of 2008 is set aside
and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
27.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate
/ litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
To
1.The Director of Village Panchayat,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat,
(Village Panchayats),
Collectorate,
Nagercoil.
3.The District Collector,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
W.A(MD)No.738 of 2014
27.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
