Madras High Court
S.Saravanan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 July, 2021
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 01.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 17.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P. No.23573 OF 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
S.Saravanan ... Petitioner
vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Urban Administration Department Buildings,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
M.R.C.Nagar, Chennai 600 028.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
Cuddalore.
4.The Executive Officer,
Ulundurpet Town Panchayat,
Ulundurpet, Kallakuruchi. ... Respondents
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiroarified Mandamus, calling for the records in pursuant to the
impugned order passed by the 4th responent in proceedings
Na.Ka.No.932/2006/A1 dated 09.07.2021 and quash the same and to
consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service on
completion of 480 days of continuous service in 24 calender months
commencing from the date of the initial appointment i.e., 01.01.1992 as per
the orer passed by the Inspector of labour dated 06.0.1997 and in the light of
the order of this Court in W.P.No.40499 of 2002 dated 18.09.2007 with all
consequential service and monetary benefits including pensionary benefits
under the Tamil nadu Pension Rules.
For Petitioner : Mr.Prem Narayan for
for Mr.K.Rathinavel
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Government Advocate.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed filed for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in pursuant to the
impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in its Na.ka.No.932/2006/A1
dated 09.07.2021 and quash the same and to consequently direct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
respondents to regularize the petitioner's service on completion of 480 days
of continuous service in 24 calender months commencing from the date of
the initial appointment i.e., 01.01.1992 as per the order passed by the
Inspector of Labour dated 06.06.1997 and in light of the order of this Court
in W.P.No.40499 of 2002 dated 18.09.2007 with all consequential service
and monetary benefits including pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules.
2. By the impugned order, the 4th respondent has rejected the
request of the petitioner for granting pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, 1978, on the ground that the petitioner was appointed only on
12.09.2008 pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2020 of this Court in W.P.No.
20156 to 20164 of 2014 and in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.158 of 2016 and etc., batch vide order dated
03.12.2019.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a
Sweeper on 01.01.1992 with the 4th respondent on daily wage basis as
Nominal Muster Roll (NMR).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that apprehending threat of
removal from service of the petitioner and six others, they had filed
I.D.No.1040 of 1996 before the Inspector of Labour, Villupuram District for
making the petitioner as permanent employees under the provision of the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status)
Act, 1981 and the said petition was allowed by holding that the petitioner
and six others were entitled for Permanent Status on completion of 480
days of service in two calender years with all attendant and consequential
benefits.
5. After the 4th respondent invited names from the District
Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Pump Operator, the
petitioner also participated in the interview held on 25.05.1998 and that the
petitioner along with 12 others were appointed as the Pump Operators with
the 4th respondent Town Panchayat on basic pay of Rs.2,610/-. However,
after appointing the petitioner on 25.05.1998 , an order of cancellation of
appointment order of the petitioner was passed on 22.10.1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that petitioner and 12 others
exhalded before the 4th Respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer of
Thirukovilur and the Tahsildar, Ulundurpet, the Executive Officer, Town
Panchayat met the members of their service Union. The Peace Committee
was constituted consisting of R.D.O. , Tahsildar, Executive Officer and
representative of the N.M.R. Pursuant to which, the Committee resolved
on 24.10.1998 that the 4th respondent Town Panchayat should issue an
individual order on 24.10.1998 permitting the petitioner and 12 others to
work as N.M.R. and they should receive their respective wages as they
received prior to regular appointment.
7. Under these circumstances, G.O.Ms.No.199 MAWS Dept dated
12.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.84 MAWS Dept dated 21.05.1998 were issued
and the petitioner approached the 4th respondent to regularize his service in
terms of the aforesaid G.O. Since the 4th respondent had failed to regularise
the service of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a claim petition under
Section 33(C) (2) of Industrial Dispute Act,1946 before the Labour Court,
Cuddalore claiming back wages as ordered by the Inspector of Labour. The
said claim petition was allowed on 08.06.1997.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
8. Almost after a lapse of five years, the Executive Officer of the 4 th
respondent Town Panchayat filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.40494, 40495,
40956 & 40499 of 2002 and W.P.Nos.40497, 40498 & 40500 of 2002. By
two separate orders dated 18.09.2007 and 24.09.2007, the writ petitions
filed by the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent Town Panchayat were
disposed. Relevant portion of the respective orders read as under:-
W.P.Nos.40494, 40495, 40956 & 40499 of 2002
''4. Today, the petitioner and the first respondent/workmen
in all these writ petitions are present before the Court and
they have filed a joint memo of compromise signed by them,
under which, the petitioner has accepted the appointment of
the first respondent/workmen as permanent employees of the
Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, without any back wages, as
the first respondents/workmen have given up their claim for
back wages.
5. In view of the same, the memo of compromise is
recorded and the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of
the memo of compromise. The petitioner is directed to
complete the process of appointment of the first
respondents/workmen as permanent employees of the
Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, after fulfilling the statutory
requirements, and pass necessary orders, as expeditiously
as possible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state that the
first respondents/workmen, on conferment of permanent
status, shall be entitled to all other benefits, excepting back
wages, which have been given up by the first
respondents/workmen themselves in all these writ
petitions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed. No costs.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
W.P.Nos.40497, 40498 & 40500 of 2002
''4. Today, the petitioner and the first
respondent/workmen in all these writ petitions are
present before the Court and they have filed a joint
memo of compromise signed by them, under which, the
petitioner has accepted the appointment of the first
respondent/workmen as permanent employees of the
Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, without any back wages,
as the first respondents/workmen have given up their
claim for back wages.
5. Earlier, in W.P.Nos.40494, 40495, 40496 &
40499 of 2002, dated 18.09.2007, recording the memo
of compromise, this Court disposed of those writ
petitions.
6. In view of the same, the memo of compromise
is recorded and the writ petitions are disposed of in
terms of the memo of compromise. The petitioner is
directed to complete the process of appointment of the
first respondents/workmen as permanent employees of
the Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, after fulfilling the
statutory requirements, and pass necessary orders, as
expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Needless to state that the first respondents/workmen,
on conferment of permanent status, shall be entitled
to all other benefits, excepting back wages, which
have been given up by the first respondents/workmen
themselves in all these writ petitions. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No
costs.''
9. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner was brought on regular time
scale of pay with effect from 2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
10. This petitioner was subsequently appointed on 12.09.2008, by
which time, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 stood amended in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.259, Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003 vide
S.R.O. B-82/2003 with effect from 1st of April, 2003. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner has sent representations asking the respondents
to grant Government Pension under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978 as it stood prior to being amended vide
G.O.Ms.No.259, Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003.
11. The respondents have passed the impugned order by referring to
the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.158 of 2019 and
batch vide order dated 13.12.2019, wherein, the Full Bench of this Court
has answered the reference as follows:-
45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference
as follows:-
i) Those who are freshly appointed on or after
01.04.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of proviso
to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 inserted by
G.O.Ms.No.259 dated 06.08.2003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
(ii) Those government servants/employees appointed
prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or permanent
basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Service Rules will be entitled to get pension
as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
(iii) In case, a government employee/servant had
also rendered service in non-provincialised service, or
on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily wage
basis and if such services were regularised before
01.04.2003, half of such service rendered shall be
counted for the purpose of conferment of pensionary
benefits.
(iv) Those government servants who were appointed
in the aforesaid four categories before the cut off date
and later appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003
and absorbed into regular service after 01.04.2003 will
not be entitled to count half of their past service for the
purpose of determination of qualifying service for
pension.
(v) Those government servants who were appointed
in the aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003 but
were absorbed in regular service after 01.04.2003 will
not be entitled to count half of their past service for the
purpose of determination of qualifying service for
pension."
12. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel
submits that the petitioner was entitled for a permanent status in the 4 th
respondent Town Panchayat in terms of the order of the Inspector of Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
dated 06.06.1997 and therefore entitled to not only to the Government
Pension under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 but also
to reckon the same for determining the qualifying service under Rule 11 of
the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978.
13. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent represented by its
Executive Officer though had filed writ petitions, those writ petitions were
disposed in terms of the Memo of Compromise, wherein, the rights that
were given up by the petitioner was confined to claim back wages and
therefore the stand of the Department that the petitioner was not entitled to
pension in terms of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 cannot be
countenanced.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at best,
the petitioner is not entitled for back wages alone. It is also submitted that
the petitioner is however entitled to include the service rendered by him in
the temporary capacity from the date of their employment and expiry of 480
days in terms of the provision of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment
(Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of
the Full Bench of this Court would not come in the way of grant of pension
to the petitioner as the Court dealt with a different issue altogether in a
reference to the Full Bench.
16. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent cannot take advantage
of their own mistake in not complying with the order dated 06.06.1997 of
the Inspector of Labour. It is further submitted that it is not open for the
respondents to state that the petitioner was not to be considered as
“permanent employee” of the 4th respondent at this distinct point of time
especially after having extracted the work from the petitioner from the year
1992.
17. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the learned Government
Advocate submits that the issue is squarely covered against the petitioner in
terms of the decision of the Full Bench rendered in W.A.No.158 of 2019
referred to supra. The learned Government Advocate further submits that
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status) Act, 1981 does not apply to the Local Body inasmuch as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
they are not “industrial establishments” within the meaning of the aforesaid
Act. It is further submitted that the appointments in the 4th respondent
Town Panchayat has to be in accordance with the provisions of
G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration & Water Supply (TP-3)
Department, dated 12.08.1997 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.205, Rural
Development Department, dated 23.03.1989.
18. It is also submitted that the right to claim pension under the
unamended Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 will not apply to the petitioner
inasmuch as the proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978
clearly states that the Rule shall not apply to the Government servants
appointed on or after 1st of April, 2003 in the Government service. It is
submitted that it cannot be said a service in connection with the affairs of
the State which were borne on pensionable establishment, whether on
temporary or permanent.
19. It is also submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is only
in the year 2008 i.e., with effect from 12.09.2008 and therefore the
petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Government Pension. It is further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
submitted that the prior to the above said date, the petitioner only come
within the exception provided in Rule 2 of the Pension Rules 1978.
Therefore, on this count also, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. It
is therefore submitted that the impugned order cannot be interfered based on
the submissions and averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. Finally,
the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that a
reading of Rule 11 of the Pension Rules makes it clear that the petitioner is
not entitled to include the period of service rendered in temporary capacity
on daily wage basis and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
20. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
has drawn my attention to G.O.Ms.No.199, Municipal Administration &
Water Supply (TP-3), dated 12.08.1997, wherein, a general norms was fixed
for new recruitment. He also referred to G.O.Ms.No.205. Rural
Development Department, dated 23.03.1989, wherein, it was specified that
the recruitment was to be made only by the following due recruitment
process.
21. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the notional fixation of the pay
with effect from the expiry of 480 days from their initial date of
appointment in terms of the provision of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
22. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
23. The facts are not in dispute. In this case, the petitioner has been
in continuous service of the 4th respondent as sweeper from 1992. The
respondents ought to have regularized the service of the petitioner in terms
of the order dated 06.06.1997 of the Inspector of Labour. The 4th
respondent also took about 5 years to file Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.40494,
40495, 40956 & 40499 of 2002 and W.P.Nos.40497, 40498 & 40500 of
2002 before this Court against said order dated 08.06.1997 of the Labour
Inspector. The said Writ Petitions were disposed by orders dated 18.09.2007
& 24.09.2007 respectively based on a Compromise Memo. The relevant
portion of the said orders has already been extracted in Paragraph 5 of this
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
24. Paragraph 4 of the said orders which has been extracted above
clearly states that the 4th respondent had accepted the appointment of the
petitioner as permanent employee, without any back wages, as the petitioner
has given up his claim for back wages. The last paragraph (i.e. paragraph 5
of the order dated 18.09.2007 and paragraph 6 of the order dated
24.09.2007) of the said orders clearly also states that the petitioner was
entitled to all other benefits excepting backwages.
25. It would be apt to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sheo Narain Nagar Vs. State of of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the plight of the
workers from the marginalized section of the Society / Communities.
Relevant portion from the said decision is re-produced below:-
“7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is
painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and
rather wrongly applied by various State Governments.
We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure
as to how many employees were working on contract
basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different
State departments. We can take judicial notice that
widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
this Court has emphasised that incumbents should
be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new
devise of making appointment on contract basis has
been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage
basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was
not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
753] . The prime intendment of the decision was
that the employment process should be by fair
means and not by back door entry and in the
available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (3)
[State of Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1
: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and
conveniently overlooked by various State
Governments/authorities. We regretfully make the
observation that Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
753] has not been implemented in its true spirit and
has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is
being used only as a tool for not regularising the
services of incumbents. They are being continued in
service without payment of due salary for which
they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read
with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as
if they have no constitutional protection as
envisaged inD.S. Nakara v.Union of India [D.S.
Nakara v.Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983
SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR 1983 SC 130] , from cradle
to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on
exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood
to be continued and in old age they are going to be
destituted, there being no provision for pension,
retiral benefits, etc. There is clear contravention of
constitutional provisions and aspiration of
downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and
to make them equals they require protection and
cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
treatment meted out is not only bad but equally
unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to
strike a balance to really implement the ideology of
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v.Umadevi (3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Thus, the
time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted to
be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such
employment way back in the year 2006. The
employment cannot be on exploitative terms,
whereas Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka
v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
753] laid down that there should not be back door
entry and every post should be filled by regular
employment, but a new device has been adopted for
making appointment on payment of paltry system
on contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise. This kind of
action is not permissible when we consider the pith
and substance of true spirit in Umadevi (3) [State
of Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] .
8. Coming to the facts of the instant case,
there was a direction issued way back in the year
1999, to consider the regularisation of the
appellants. However, regularisation was not done.
The respondents chose to give minimum of the pay
scale, which was available to the regular
employees, way back in the year 2000 and by
passing an order, the appellants were also
conferred temporary status in the year 2006, with
retrospective effect on 2-10-2002. As the
respondents have themselves chosen to confer a
temporary status to the employees, as such there
was requirement at work and posts were also
available at the particular point of time when order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
was passed. Thus, the submission raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent that posts were
not available, is belied by their own action.
Obviously, the order was passed considering the
long period of services rendered by the appellants,
which were taken on exploitative terms”.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has also clearly
observed that the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 was being wrongly
incorporated to deny the benefits to the persons like petitioner. Therefore,
the respondents ought to have regularized the services of the petitioner in
terms of the decision of the Inspector of Labour.
27. Having forced the petitioner to enter into the compromise and
thereby bind him to an order of this Court, the respondents cannot take
undue advantage in the delay on their part regularizing the services of the
petitioner with effect from the date specified in the order of the Inspector of
Labour and that petitioner is given their back wages alone. If the services of
the petitioner was regularized then and there in terms of the decision of the
Inspector of Police as modified by an order dated 18.09.2007 & 24.09.2007,
the appointment of the petitioner would date back to end of 480 th day.
It is no longer open for the respondents to state that the 4 th respondent is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
outside the purview of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial
Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981.
28. That being the case, the petitioner is entitled to the Government
Pension under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 which
makes it clear that a Government Servant appointed to the service and post
in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable
establishments, whether temporary or permanent.
29. Though the petitioner's regularization was subsequent to the
amendment of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 vide G.O.Ms.No.259,
Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2003, it is to be noticed that
even after the petitioner was appointed on temporary or permanent basis,
there cannot be any denial of pension, merely because the respondents
regularized the service of the petitioner on 12.09.2008 pursuant to the
orders dated 18.09.2007 and 24.09.2007 of this Court in W.P.Nos.40494,
40495, 40956 & 40499 of 2002 and W.P.Nos.40497, 40498 & 40500 of
2002 filed by the 4th respondent.
30. Even otherwise, paragraph 45(ii) from the order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
03.12.2019 of the Full Bench of this Court in The Government of Tamil
Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department Vs.
R.Kaliyamoorthy and etc. in W.A.No.158 of 2016 etc., batch, makes it
clear that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the provisions of
the aforesaid Rules which are reiterated for the sake of clarity:-
45. In the light of the above, we answer the reference as
follows:-
i. Those who are freshly appointed on or after
01.04.2003 are not entitled to pension in view of
proviso to Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules,
1978 inserted by G.O.Ms.No.259 dated
06.08.2003.
ii. Those government servants/employees appointed
prior to 01.04.2003 whether on temporary or
permanent basis in terms of Rule 10 (a) (i) of
Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules
will be entitled to get pension as per the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
iii. In case, a government employee/servant had also
rendered service in non-provincialised service, or
on consolidated pay or on honorarium or daily
wage basis and if such services were regularised
before 01.04.2003, half of such service rendered
shall be counted for the purpose of conferment of
pensionary benefits.
iv. Those government servants who were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
appointed in the aforesaid four categories
before the cut off date and later appointed
under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Service Rules before 01.04.2003
and absorbed into regular service after
01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of
their past service for the purpose of
determination of qualifying service for pension.
v. Those government servants who were appointed in
the aforesaid four categories before 01.04.2003
but were absorbed in regular service after
01.04.2003 will not be entitled to count half of
their past service for the purpose of determination
of qualifying service for pension."
31. In Sheo Narain Nagar case referred to supra, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clearly underlined the malaise in exploitative tendency
to appoint the citizens on daily wage basis without making them permanent
employees of State Service. Following passages only need to be reminded
to the State from Paragraph 7 of the above Judgment which has already been
extracted above:-
i. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid
practice is being continued. Though this Court has
emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on
regular basis as per rules but new devise of making
appointment on contract basis has been adopted,
employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
exploitative forms
ii. There is clear contravention of constitutional
provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class.
They do have equal rights and to make them equals
they require protection and cannot be dealt with
arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not
only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial
of rights.
iii. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms,
whereas Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v.Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] laid
down that there should not be back door entry and
every post should be filled by regular employment,
but a new device has been adopted for making
appointment on payment of paltry system on
contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise. This kind of
action is not permissible when we consider the pith
and substance of true spirit in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v.Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 753] .
32. It was bounden duty of the respondents State to have regularised
the services of such employees as a Welfare State. Only the State can
protect the interest of its citizen who have the misfortune of either not
getting proper education or getting suitably employed with a decent salary.
The State ought to have played a more proactive role in protecting their
right by regularising their services.
33. The benefit of pension to the Sweepers who have given their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
youth and essence of life cannot be denied as the pension of the
Government is to benefit of old, feeble and frail to support themselves in the
evening of their life. To deny pension is to deny dignity and honour which
are part of life and liberty given to them and recognised under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents is not only arbitrary
but also borders with unfair labour practice which needs judicial
intervention. This is a fit case for exercising the discretion under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order dated
09.07.2021 of the 4th stands quashed.
34. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner
with effect from 01.01.1994 notionally as per the order passed by the
Inspector of Labour and in the light of the order of this Court in
W.P.No.40499 of 2002 dated 18.09.2007 with all consequential service and
monetary benefits including pensionary benefits under the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules,1978.
35. Therefore, this Writ Petition stands allowed with the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
observations. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
17.02.2022
Index: Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/No
kkd
To:
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its
Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Urban Administration Department Buildings,
No.75, Santhome High Road,
M.R.C.Nagar, Chennai 600 028.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
Cuddalore.
4.The Executive Officer,
Ulundurpet Town Panchayat,
Ulundurpet, Kallakuruchi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN,J.
kkd/smn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
Pre-delivery Order in
W.P.No.23573 of 2021
17.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
