Madras High Court
A.Perumal vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2021
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)
A.Perumal ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Erode District, Erode.
4.The Head Master,
Government Boy's Higher Secondary School,
Sivagiri, Erode District – 638 109. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
respondents and more particularly the third respondent pursuant to his
proceedings made in Na.Ka.No.7760/Aa1/2014 dated 19.02.2021 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently
directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as
“Sweeper” fixing time-scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1996 the date
of petitioners appointment in the approved vacancy through Employment
Exchange besides disbursing the arrears of back-wages with all
allowances increments etc with effect from 01.06.1996, the date of the
petitioner's appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Amal Raj
For Respondents :
For R1 to R3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Government Advocate
ORDER
Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government takes notice on behalf
of the first to third respondents.
2. This is a pathetic case of a Sanitary Worker (Sweeper)
appointed in the fourth respondent School who was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange Board way back in 1996 and called for an
interview in terms of a Letter dated 24.04.1996.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
3. The petitioner has been in continuance of service from
01.06.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has
rendered service for a continuous period of 26 years, the third respondent
has passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner has not rendered
10 years of continuous service. The ostensible reason given in the
impugned order is that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of
G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated
28.02.2006 and the subsequent amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.74,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated
27.06.2013.
4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that pursuant to the orders passed by this court, the
respondents have been passing Government Orders regularizing the
services of persons like the petitioner who were originally appointed on
Daily Wage Basis on consolidated pay. In this connection, a reference is
made to Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.385, Finance (Pay Cell)
Department dated 01.10.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.111, School Education
(R1) Department dated 09.05.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
the Government decided to regularize the services of similarly placed
persons in Government Offices and various Local Bodies who were
employed on Part Time Basis, Daily Wage Basis in School Education
Department who have completed ten years of services.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
several writ petitions have been filed in the past also and the orders of
this court have been implemented by the respondents. He drew attention
to the order passed in W.P.No.17663 of 2014 which was implemented
vide G.O.Ms.No.50, School Education [S.E.4(1)] Department dated
08.03.2019.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and
others Vs State of Jharkand and others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 wherein, it
was held as under:-
“11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view
that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic
interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the
Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the
service rendered by them. If they have completed 10
years of service they should be regularised unless there is
some valid objection to their regularisation like
misconduct etc.
12. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions.
The State should take a decision within four months from
today on regularisation of the status of the appellants.
13. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
14. We may add that that it would be worthwhile
for the State of Jharkhand to henceforth consider making
regular appointments only and dropping the idea of
making irregular appointments so as to short circuit the
process of regular appointments.”
8. Appearing on behalf of the first to third respondents, the learned
Government Advocate submits that impugned order cannot be interfered
as the petitioner has not rendered more than ten years of continuous
services. He submits that the regularization of services of the petitioner
cannot be made contrary to G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006 as superseded by G.O.Ms.No.74,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated
27.06.2013. He therefore submits that the writ petition is liable to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
dismissed. It is further submitted that the petitioner was only a Part-Time
Worker in the capacity of the Sanitary Worker (Sweeper) and since the
petitioner had not discharged from function through out the day during
normal working hours as in the case of other Part Time Workers/Daily
Wage Workers, the petitioner cannot claim any parity with those whose
services were regularized pursuant to the orders of this Court and the
Government Orders implementing the same.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the first to third respondents. I have perused
the impugned orders and the various Government Orders rendered by the
learned counsel for the petitioner implementing the orders of this Court
pursuant to which services of various Part Time Worker/Daily Wage
Workers services were regularized.
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 13 SCC 432, held as follows:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
(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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
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.
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 was
passed. Thus, the submission raised by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
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”.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the plight of persons
like the petitioner who are forced to work and were being denied the
right of regularization in Government servants. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has also distinguished the decision in The Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and also in
Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai
and others Vs Thiru.R.Govindaswamy and others, (2014) 4 SCC 769.
12. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in service of
the fourth respondent School for more than ten years and since the
petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange Board, it is not
open for the respondents to state that the petitioner was not entitled to
regularisation particularly in the light of the fact that services of the
similarly placed persons have been regularized in the past.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
13. Considering the same, this writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by
regularizing the services of the petitioner with consequential relief to the
petitioner on par with those who have been regularized earlier in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated
28.02.2006, G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F)
Department dated 27.06.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.50, School Education
[S.E.4(1)] Department dated 08.03.2019. No costs.
29.10.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
rgm/arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Erode District, Erode.
4.The Head Master,
Government Boy's Higher Secondary School,
Sivagiri, Erode District – 638 109.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN, J.
rgm/arb
W.P.No.23233 of 2021
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
