Madras High Court
This Matter Is Listed Today Under vs The Principal Secretary And ... on 28 July, 2021
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
in M.P.No.1 and 2 of 2015
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
This matter is listed today under
the caption “for being mentioned” at
the instance of the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the cause title
of the order dated 28.07.2021 made in
W.P.No.5040 of 2015, respondent No.3
is wrongly typed as the Joint Director
of Agriculture, Kancheepuram, instead
of the Joint Director of Agriculture,
Mannarpuram, Trichy District.
3. Therefore, Registry is
directed to carryout the correction as
indicated above and issue a fresh order
copy to the parties on or before
15.11.2021.
11.11.2021
asi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.Nos.5040 of 2015
&
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
M.Suresh ....Petitione
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Agriculture Development
Government of Tamilnadu
Agricultural Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner cum Director of Agricultural
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
3.The Joint Director of Agriculture
Mannarpuram, Trichy District
4.The Assistant Director of Agriculture
Pullampadi, Trichy District ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus
calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the
impugned impugned letter No.2570/Ve.Ni 4(1)/2014-6 dated 13.10.2014
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
petitioner in the regular vacancy sanctioned as per G.O.(P) 243
Agriculture (VNi4) Department dated 10.12.2013 in regular time scale of
pay on relaxing the relevant rules for appointment as done in similar cases
in various departments.
For Petitioner : Ms.T.Aananthi
For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Govt.Advocate
-----
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a casual labourer on daily wage
basis on 28.12.1998 under the respondent. He was attending all types of
works. However, he was not regularized in service. The Government has
issued orders to regularize the services of numerous casual labourers
employed by Government department. As per the various Government
orders those who have completed 10 years of service were directed to be
regularized and finally by G.O.Ms.No.74, P& AR Department dated
27.06.2013 has issued certain restriction with regard to age, appointment
through Employment office, part time working etc., Since the petitioner
was not sponsored by Employment Exchange his case was not considered.
Therefore, he approached this Court in W.P.No.31348 of 2013. wherein by
order dated 21.11.2013, this Court directed the respondent to consider the
case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the Government
Orders directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders within a period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
of twelve weeks. The 1st respondent by Government Letter
No.2570/AA4(1)/2014-6 dated 13.10.2014 rejected the request of the
petitioner in view of G.O.Ms.74 P & AR Department, dated 27.06.2013.
Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard the submission of both the sides.
3. From the perusal of the materials, it is seen that in identical
circumstances, several casual labourers working in very same Agricultural
Department have approached this Court by way of W.P.No.23147 and
23148 of 2004. This Court has given a direction to regularize those casual
labourers by its order dated 26.02.2010. Government preferred an appeal
vide W.A.No.2617 and 2105 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on
08.06.2011. Again, an SLP was preferred against the Division Bench order
in SLP No.9110 and 9111 of 2013 which were also dismissed on
29.04.2013. Thereafter, the casual labourers were regularized vide
G.O.2(D) No.85, Agricultural Department dated 15.06.2013. Like wise in
the case of one Anbazhagan, the Government relaxed the conditions
imposed in G.O.Ms.No.74 P& AR Department dated 27.06.2013 and
implemented the order of the Court by regularizing him in G.O.Ms.No.205
Town Development Department dated 18.12.2014. In yet another case, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
G.O.Ms.No.71, Rural Development Department dated 12.02.2014, the
conditions specified in G.O.Ms.No.74 were relaxed apart from giving age
relaxation and non sponsoring through Employment Exchange. Thus, in
quite a number of cases, the Government has relaxed the rules and
regularized the employee from the date of completion of 10 years. In the
instant case, the petitioner has also completed more than 10 years of
service.
4. Government has taken a consistent stand before this Court
that the order of regularization is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi and Ors , AIR 2006
SC 1806 as well as Civil Appeal Nos.2730 and 2731 of 2014 in the case of
Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai.
5. But it is to be noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Uma Devi's case has been distinguished in the case of Sheo
Narain Nagar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.18510
of 2017 dated 13.11.2017, wherein it has been observed as under:
“8..... We have to strike a balance to really
implement the ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
time has come to stop the situation where Uma Devi
(supra) 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 Uma Devi (supra) 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/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of
action is not permissible, when we consider the pith and
substance of true spirit in Uma Devi (supra).
9. Coming to the facts of the instant case, there
was a direction issued way back in the year 1999, to
consider the regularization of the appellants. However,
regularization 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
such there was requirement at work and posts were also
available at the particular point of time when order was
passed. Thus, the submission raised by 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.
10. The High Court dismissed the writ application
relying on the decision in Uma Devi (supra). But the
appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they
had rendered service for three years, when they were
offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case
of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for
offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment
could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of
Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the
relevant point of time, when their temporary status was
conferred w.e.f. 2.10.2002. The appellants were required
to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as
laid down in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (supra). Since the
appellants had completed 10 years of service and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
temporary status had been given by the respondents with
retrospective effect in the 2.10.2002, we direct that the
services of the appellants be regularized from the said
date i.e. 2.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears
of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of
three months from today.”
6. Therefore, it is very clear that the judgment of UmaDevi can
be applied only in cases where illegal appointments are made denying the
opportunity of the people who are waiting before the Employment
Exchange. Such back door appointments shall be considered as illegal
cannot be regularized at any cost. But, when Government has adopted the
procedure of engaging casual labourers indiscriminately and has taken a
policy decision to regularize them on completion of 10 years of service,
they cannot turn around and state such engagements are illegal. Non
sponsoring through Employment Exchange may be an irregular method,
the Government in an unavoidable circumstances have engaged casual
labourers for getting their work done. Those casual labourers have
continued for more than ten years. It is also relevant to state that those last
grade servants does not require any educational qualification to do those
menial works. In such circumstances, selection or engagement of casual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
labourers may not undergo regular selection method of getting sponsor
from Employment Exchange or adherence to rules. Once a decision is
taken to regularize the casual labourers it shall be uniformly applied.
7. In the instant case, it is noted that by way of several
Government Orders, the restriction imposed in G.O.Ms.No.274 dated
27.06.2013 as well as the rules with regard to age, educational
qualification and reference through Employment Exchange were relaxed
and their service were regularized. When a particular treatment was given
to a person in the very same department, it shall be extended to the
similarly placed persons of the very same department. The respondent
department cannot take different stands with regard to its own employees.
Once a decision is taken in implementing the orders of regularization, it
shall be extended to all the people who are similarly placed. Therefore, if
it is not extended inspite of the direction given by the Court it amounts to
discrimination. Such discriminatory treatment is violative of principles of
natural justice, doctrine of equality and it will amount to arbitrary exercise
of power.
8. In such a view, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar's case, will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
squarely apply to this case. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above judgment as well as the orders passed in
S.L.P.No.9110 and 9111 of 2013 dated 29.04.2013 against the very same
respondents, this Court is inclined to grant relief as prayed for. The
respondents are directed to pass orders regularizing the petitioner in the
light of the above Government Orders within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Writ petition is order with the above directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.07.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
To
1.The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
of Agriculture Development
Government of Tamilnadu
Agricultural Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Commissioner cum Director of Agricultural
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005
3.The joint Director of Agriculture
Kancheepuram
4.The Seed Testing Officer
Seed Testing Laboratory
Panji Pettai
Kancheepuram District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.5040 of 2015
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
kpr
W.P.Nos.5040 of 2015
&
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
28.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
