Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs Elizabeth A on 11 March, 2022
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
&
C.M.P. No. 3754 of 2022
The Commissioner
Thiruvarur Municipality,
Thiruvarur District. ..Appellant
Vs.
1. Elizabeth A
2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supplies Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ..Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 05.03.2020 passed in
W.P. No. 12030 of 2011.
For Appellant :: Mr.R. Ravichandran
For Respondents :: Mr.A.R. Suresh for R1
Mr.V. Manoharan,
Addl.Govt. Pleader for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
The present writ appeal has been preferred by the Municipality
challenging the order dated 05.03.2020 in W.P. No. 12030 of 2020.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the
Commissioner of Thiruvarur Municipality, granting regularisation with
effect from 23.02.2006, the 1st respondent, who was appointed as Gang
Mazdoor on compassionate grounds as early as on 30.04.1992, approached
this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
3. The trajectory of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner’s case runs
thus:
On the demise of her husband on 20.11.1991, the case of the 1 st
respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered
and on 30.04.1992, she was appointed as a Gang Mazdoor on time scale of
pay of Rs.750-12-870-14-940 with other usual allowances. However, within
four days, on 04.05.1992, stating that temporary Gang Mazdoor should be
appointed on daily wages, the earlier order appointing the 1 st respondent on
time scale of pay was cancelled and her daily wage was fixed at Rs.21/-.
Subsequently, based on G.O.Ms.No. 125 (MA & WS) Department dated
27.05.1999, she was appointed as Sanitary Worker on consolidated pay on
15.06.2001. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.21 (Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (MC-3)) Department dated 23.02.2006 was issued, in and by
which, the Government had directed the Municipal Commissioners to
regularise the services of consolidated pay and NMRs on daily wages on
their roll as on 01.10.1996 in respect of Municipalities in the vacant posts
and to regularise their services in the regular post from the date of issue of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
the Government Order i.e, 23.02.2006. Relying on this Government Order,
vide proceedings dated 28.02.2006, the writ petitioner’s services were
regularised only with effect from 23.02.2006, along with other Sanitary
Workers, ignoring 14 years of her earlier service, which made the writ
petitioner to knock the doors of this Court in 2011.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions
made on either side and after perusing the materials on record, allowed the
writ petition on the ground that the appellant Municipality, after having
extracted work on continuous basis, was duty bound to regularise the
services of the writ petitioner on completion of required length of service and
the contention of the Municipality that the writ petitioner should have made
an application soon after the order passed by the Municipality cancelling her
appointment on time scale of pay and appointing her on daily wage, was
unwarranted and unjustified. Further, the learned Single Judge observed
that ignoring the fact that the writ petitioner was appointed on
compassionate grounds as early as in the year 1992, the Municipality cannot
take a stand that she is entitled to get regularisation only with effect from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
28.02.2006 on the basis of G.O.Ms. No.21 dated 23.02.2006 issued in
respect of other Sanitary Workers, which would defeat the very purpose of
granting compassionate appointment.
5. The main ground of attack of the learned counsel for the
appellant in questioning the impugned order is that when the 1 st respondent
has not chosen to raise any objection nor make any representation with
regard to cancellation of the order appointing her initially as Gang Mazdoor
on time scale of pay and thereafter, modifying the same as daily wage at
Rs.21/- per day and further, when she has been brought under time scale of
pay along with other Sanitary Workers as early as in 2006, she cannot seek
redressal of her grievance at this distance of time and the writ petition ought
to have been dismissed on the ground of laches.
6. Heard both sides.
7. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant. The original prayer sought in the writ petition was
amended vide order of Court dated 28.07.2011 in M.P. No. 3 of 2011
permitting the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to challenge the order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
04.05.1992. It is admitted by the parties that Gang Mazdoor is a Class III
post. The 1st respondent was granted appointment on compassionate
grounds on the demise of her husband, who was a regular employee of the
appellant Municipality. Having appointed her as Gang Mazdoor, which is a
Class III post, under time scale of pay, there is no reason whatsoever for the
appellant to cancel the said appointment and engage her as a daily wage
employee. Further, the 1st respondent has been in the service of the
appellant Municipality right from 1992, but was brought under time scale of
pay only with effect from 23.02.2006 by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 21 dated
23.02.2006, issued in respect of other Sanitary Workers, ignoring 14 years
of service rendered by the 1st respondent and also the fact that she was
appointed on compassionate grounds. As rightly observed by the learned
Single Judge, having extracted work from the 1st respondent, the appellant
was duty bound to regularise her services on completion of the required
length of service. Besides, across the bar, it is brought to the notice of this
Court the proceedings dated 31.01.2022 by which the appellant
Municipality has granted the benefits to the 1 st respondent pursuant to the
orders passed by this Court, however, wording it that it will be without
prejudice to the rights of the parties in the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are in agreement with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Finding no merits in the writ appeal, the
writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (M.S.Q.J.)
11.03.2022
nv
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and
Water Supplies Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
Nv
W.A. No. 516 of 2022
11.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
