Madras High Court
C.Kasi vs The Secretary To Govt Of Tamil Nadu on 11 March, 2021
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
C.Kasi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary to Govt of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Town Panchayat,
Kuralagam Buildings, Chennai - 108.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Vellore District.
4. The Executive Officer,
Vilapakkam First Grade Town Panchayat,
Vilapakkam, Vellore District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second
respondent to consider and pass final order on the proposal of the 4th
respondent dated 17.05.2017 in Na.Ka.No.12/2009 within the stipulated time
by incorporating petitioner's son namely Thiru Sankar, instead of Thiru
Panchanathan.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.P.L.Thirumoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Govt.Advocate
for R1 and R2.
Mr.B.C.Durairaj, Addl.Govt.Pleader,
for R3 and R4.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the first and second respondent to consider and pass final order on
the proposal of the 4th respondent dated 17.05.2017 in Na.Ka.No.12/2009
within the stipulated time by incorporating petitioner's son namely Thiru
Sankar, instead of Thiru Panchanathan.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief:
The petitioner's husband namely Chakravarthi was an employee of the
fourth respondent and he was initially engaged as NMR Sweeper on
01.10.1984 and after rendering 14 years continuous unblemished service, he
was appointed as consolidate pay sweeper with effect from 01.01.1998, in
terms of G.O.199 MAWSS Dept dated 12.08.1997. As per this Government
Order, on completion of three year satisfactory consolidated pay service, the
concerned employee would be brought under regular time scale. Pursuant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
the said Government Order, several employees were brought under regular
time scale. But the then Executive Officer had delayed to send the proposal
to the Head office and hence, he was not brought under regular time scale of
pay. Further more, since the general ban was imposed by Government of
Tamilnadu in the month of November 2001, all regularization process was
completely stopped in Town Panchayats till June 2006. In the meanwhile,
while he was in service, he died on 27.03.2001, leaving behind the petitioner,
his sons and daughter as legal heirs.
2.1. The petitioner sent applications dated 31.01.2002 and 01.04.2002
to the fourth respondent for settlement of retirement benefits and also seeking
compassionate appointment to her son. But it was rejected by the fourth
respondent on 17.05.2002, on the ground that the legal heirs of the deceased,
who was working on consolidated pay, are not entitled to claim
compassionate appointment and retirement benefits.
2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11948 of 2014 seeking to
bring the service of her husband under regular time scale, from the date on
which he completed 3 years in the category of consolidated pay and to give
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
employment to her son Panchanathan. The above writ petition was disposed
of along with batch of writ petitions by the Division Bench of this court
dated 01.09.2015, directing the authorities to bring the employees under
regular time scale from the date on which they completed three years
consolidated pay service. Based on the above order, the 4th respondent sent
the proposal to the second respondent on 17.05.2017 through the third
respondent, seeking permission to grant regular time scale of pay and is
pending before the government without any progress. Hence this writ
petition.
3. Heard the learned counsels appearing to both the parties.
4. The legal issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8564 of 2015 between State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others Vs. Amit Shrivas dated 29.09.2020, wherein, it is held
as follows.
"15. Insofar as providing succor is concerned, unfortunately, since
the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have passed and
really speaking, the aspect of providing succor to the family immediately
does not survive. We have still examined the matter in the conspectus of
the applicable policy. It is not in question that the policy prevailing was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
one dated 18.08.2008. Clause 12.1 clearly proscribes work
charge/contingency fund and daily wager employees from compassionate
appointment. The gravamen of the submission of the respondent is based
on the classification of his late father as a permanent employee on account
of having worked for more than 15 years and the consequent
regularization of his service.
16. In our view, the aforesaid plea misses the point of distinction
between a work-charged employee, a permanent employee and a regular
employee. The late father of the respondent was undoubtedly a work-
charged employee and it is nobody's case that he has not been paid out of
work-charged/ contingency fund. He attained the status of permanent
employee on account of having completed 15 years of service, which 2
State of Gujarat & Ors. V. Arvindkumar T.Tiwari & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 545
entitled him to certain benefits including pension and Krammonati. This
will , however, not ipso facto give him the status of a regular employee.
17. In the aforesaid behalf, an analogy can be drawn with the
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963,
under which employees can be classified as permanent, permanent
seasonal, probationers, badlis, apprentices, temporary and fixed-term
employment employees. A work-charged contingency employee can also
be classified under any of the afore- mentioned categories and under the
said Standing Orders, the classification as permanent can be granted even
on the completion of 6 months service in a clear vacancy.
......
21. Thus, the classification of the late father of the respondent as a
permanent employee, and this distinction between a 'permanent' status
and a 'regular' status appears to have been lost sight of in the impugned
judgments.
5. In the light of the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
of India, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition
cannot be considered and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
11.03.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yest/No
mst
To
1.The Secretary to Govt of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Town Panchayat,
Kuralagam Buildings, Chennai - 108.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Vellore District.
4. The Executive Officer,
Vilapakkam First Grade Town Panchayat,
Vilapakkam, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
mst
W.P.No.5556 of 2022
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
