Madras High Court
G.Jayalakshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 March, 2022
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)Nos.17009, 17021 and 17026 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.14219 to 14221, 14228,14229,14231,14233,14235 and
14236 of 2020
1.G.Jayalakshmi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17009/2020
2.A.Gunavathi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17021/2020
3.N.Mohanraj ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17026/2020
Watershed Development Team Member(Engineer)
District Watershed Development Agency
O/o. District Watershed Development Agency
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar District.
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil nadu,
Rep by tis Secretary
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary
Agricultural Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
3.The Director
Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
4.The Chief Executive Officer,
State Level Nodal Agency,
TANCOF Building No.55,
Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Ekkattuthangal
Chennai-600 032.
5.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
6.The Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development)
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents in all W.Ps
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd
respondent vide his proceedings Na.Ka.No.66051/2011/EE2.1 dated
31.10.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the
respondents to engage the services of the petitioner as Overseer/Junior
Draughting Officer taking into consideration of their length of service
and experience gained by him with all other service and monetary
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmalkhan
in all W.Ps for M/s. Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
in all W.Ps Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in all these writ petitions were appointed as
Watershed Development Team Members in the Drought Prone areas
Programme, which is a project funded 60% by the Central Government
and 40% by the State Government. So, all the petitioners were engaged
for the project work as Overseer/Junior Draughting Officers and most of
them are working for more than 20 years continuously one after the other
projects. Presently, the Batch V (2013-14) and Bath VI (2014-15) are in
the third phase of the project. Under these circumstances, the petitioners
have been directed to be disbanded by the impugned orders on the
ground that the regular staff would continue the remaining project work,
whereas the petitioners, who were appointed in the project work are
entitled to continue till the completion of the project. The work will be
completed only in the month of March, 2020-2021 and March 2021-2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
and therefore, they are entitled to work in the project upto March,
2021-2022, whereas in the present case before the completion of the
project, the work of the petitioners have been disbanded by the
respondents. Hence, aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed
these writ petitions to quash the impugned orders.
2.The learned Senior counsel Mr.Ajmalkhan appearing for the
petitioners would contend that all these petitioners were appointed as
Watershed Development Team Members and they are working for more
than 10 years. After utilizing the services of the petitioners for more than
10 years, all of a sudden their work was disbanded, which is totally
against the interest of the petitioners. It is the duty of the State
Government to protect the rights of the employers, who are working for
more than 10 to 15 years and crossed the age of 40-45 years and at this
stage, the petitioner cannot go anywhere and seek for employment. He
would further submit that the project has been funded by the Central
Government and the Central Government will pay the project fund to the
State Government and that there is no loss for the State Government and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
there is no impediment for the State Government to permit the petitioners
to continue in the existing project work upto the completion of the
project. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that before
expiry of the project work, which is to be completed in the month of
March, 2021-2022, the respondents disbanded against the guidelines
issued with regard to the Watershed Development Project. Therefore, he
would contend that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further
submit that the project is going to be completed in the month of March
2021-2022 and therefore, in the middle of the project, the respondents
disbanded the petitioners, which is totally against the guidelines issued
under the Watershed Development Project.
4.The learned counsel would further contend that in the
communication dated 15.11.2019, it was clearly clarified that the life
span of the project is running upto March 2021-2022. As per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.43, Agriculture (WD1) Department,
dated 17.02.2020, at paragraph No.7 (iv) (6), the WDT members who are
required to implement the remaining works in the watersheds and take up
consolidated phase and aid in the impact Evaluation process will be
continued to be engaged till the project is declared as closed and
disbanded as soon as the projects are closed. But the impugned order of
the second respondent prematurely disbanded the services of the
petitioners, which is against the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.43,
dated 17.02.2020 and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
5.Per contra, Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader would submit that the writ petitioners were
appointed on consolidated pay in the scheme and thus, on completion of
the project, the writ petitioners were relieved from their services for want
of vacancies and in the order of appointment of the writ petitioners itself,
it is clearly stated that the appointments are purely temporary and by
virtue of the order of appointment, they cannot claim any right over the
said temporary appointments. The services of the temporary watershed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
development team members like petitioners are not required and
therefore, the said posts were ordered to be disbanded. Hence, the
respondents disbanded the petitioners. Further, he contended that there
are three phases for completion of project viz., (i) Preparatory phase; (ii)
Work phase and (iii) Evaluation phase. As far as the first two phases are
concerned, the work of the watershed development team members are
required and now the work of first two phases are completed and the
work of last phase alone is pending, which can be carried out with the
services of the regular employees. Hence, the respondents have
disbanded the services of the petitioners, as they are using the services of
the regular employees for the purpose of evaluation phase. Since no work
for the petitioners in the project, their employments have been disbanded
and therefore, they cannot claim as a mater of right and hence, the
contention of the petitioners deserves no merits.
6.In support of this contention, the learned Additional Government
Pleader referred the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 (3)
SCR 712 (INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
UTTRA PRADHESH v. PUSHPA SRIVADHARVA), wherein it has
been held that the appointment on adhoc basis and on contractual basis
on consolidated pay for a fixed period are terminable without notice
when the appointment came to be an end by efflux of time, the appointer
has no right to continue in the post.
7.The learned Additional Government Pleader has also referred the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA
POUSHATH UP v. AMULKUMAR MISHRA AND OTHER, dated
19.05.1992, wherein it has been observed that the adhoc appointee /
temporary employers paid on piece rate basis and discontinued on
completion of their task were not entitled to reinstatement.
8.The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.N.Satheesh
Kumar would fairly submit that when the matter came up for hearing on
the last occasion, this Court raised a query whether the services of the
petitioners can be utilised if at all if there is any forthcoming new
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
projects, for which, the respondents also filed an affidavit dated
20.10.2020 thereby they have clearly stated that the second respondent
will consider the claim of the writ petitioners, if new projects in
watershed are formulated by the Government of India and according to
the guidelines framed by the Government of India in appropriate time.
Therefore, he contented that the interest of the petitioners also protected,
since this affidavit has been filed considering the fact that the petitioners
have been worked in the watershed management programme for more
than 10-15 years and crossed the age of 40-45 years and all these facts
can be taken into consideration for the purpose of recruiting the
petitioners in the new project. Hence, he would contend that there is no
merit in the present writ petitions and prayed for dismissal of the same.
9.Heard Mr.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners; Mr.N.Sathessh Kumar, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available
on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
10.The petitioners were appointed in the different projects in the
watershed management programme on consolidated pay. No doubt all the
petitioners have been working continuously for more than ten to fifteen
years and they have been crossed the age of 40-45 years. Since they have
been working for more than 10-15 years, they would have gained the
experience, which will be useful for the respondents. However, in the
present case, the petitioners were disbanded by the second respondent
stating that the project works had been completed. Now the contention of
the respondents is that there are three stages and two stages have been
completed and last stage is the evaluation stage and the respondents have
been utilizing the service of the regular employees for evaluation work
and hence, they have disbanded the work of the petitioners.
11.No doubt, the respondents are the employers, who are providing
an employment to the petitioners. The employer always have a right to
take a decision with regard to the conditions of employment. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
present case, the respondents, being employer, have come to a conclusion
that no work is available to avail the service of the petitioners. Therefore,
they have passed the impugned order disbanding the petitioners' service.
But the petitioners' main grievance was that the project will have a life
span upto March 2021-2022 and thus, the respondents can avail the
services of the petitioners. However, it is for the respondents to decide as
to the utilization of service of the petitioners upto March 2021-2022. In
the present case, as discussed earlier, the first two stages of work have
been completed and the third stage is the evaluation stage and that they
have decided to complete the evaluation stage with the help of their
regular employees. Such being the case, the petitioners cannot insist the
respondents to provide work when they have no work to provide for the
petitioners.
12.This Court is of the view that, it is the request of the petitioners
to provide work until the completion of the project upto March
2021-2022, so that, they can get the salary for their livelihood. Having
worked in the project for the respondents for more than 10-15 years and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
crossed the age of 40-45 years, now the petitioners are wanted to work to
meet out their livelihood and standing before the respondents for
providing work. Though the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right,
the respondents being the welfare State, it is bound to consider the plea
of the petitioners in a sympathetic manner, in which case, the respondents
can consider the case of the petitioners and provide priority in the
employment, in case any similar works are going to be implemented in
future. That apart, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners
had been worked for more than 10-15 years, and also crossed the age of
40-45 years and that too they are the Diploma holders and B.E.
Graduates, it would be appropriate for the respondents, in case, if any
direct recruitment is called for, to provide age relaxation, so that, they
can also apply and get employment. Recruiting the petitioners in the
direct recruitment with their rich experience in the field, certainly will be
useful for the respondents and it would helpful for the beneficiaries at the
end.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
13.The petitioners made an allegation with regard to the diversion
of the fund by the second respondent to some other project, but no
evidence is produced for such diversion and it is for the Central
Government to take action, in case of diversion of fund and in this case
due to non availability of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that there
is no merit in the contention of the petitioners on this aspect.
14.On 24th July, 2020, the Secretary, Government of India has sent
a communication to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,
wherein in paragraph No.3, it has been stated as follows:-
“The Government of India is proposing to come up with a new
generation if watershed projects under WDC- PMKSY for which
concerned State department may be asked to be in readiness with
proposals. The DoLR had already discussed the revision of Guidelines
with your State SLNA, Chairman and CEO in the month of January,
2020. Keeping the broad issue of Land Degradation Neutrality in view
for achieving Sustainable Development Goals and completing the efforts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
of GOI towards doubling farmers income by 2022, the role of the State
Government in implementing the scheme effectively assumes paramount
importance.”
15.The said communication appears to be that the Government of
India raised a proposal to the Government of Tamil Nadu to come out
with new watershed project. Further, the respondents have also filed an
affidavit, dated 20.10.2020, whereby they have cleared that after taking
into consideration of the utilisation of the services of the petitioners by
the respondents for more than 10-15 years, they have stated that the
services of the petitioners will be considered in case, if any new
watershed projects comes in future.
16.Considering the fact that the petitioners are working for more
than 10-15 years in the same project and considering the age of the
petitioners and that the respondents being a welfare state, though it is not
a matter of right for the petitioners to claim any legal right over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
employment, it is the duty of the State Government to protect the interest
of the petitioners to the extent of their survival, as the State has utilised
their services extensively, they cannot go and seek for any new
employment. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents can
utilise the services of the petitioners in the forthcoming new projects, as
stated in the affidavit filed by the second respondent. The petitioners
have already got rich experience in the said watershed project. No doubt,
such rich experience will be useful for the respondents, in case of
utilising their services in the forthcoming new watershed projects which
will be beneficial not only for the respondents, but also the agriculturists.
17.Though this Court is not inclined to allow these writ petitions,
as there is no merit, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents (a).to
consider the petitioners, who are all already worked in the watershed
projects, and give priority in employment to them, in the forthcoming
new projects of the respondents; and (b).to consider the age relaxation, in
the case of direct recruitment for watershed projects, to the petitioners, so
as to enable them to participate in the process of direct recruitment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
18.With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
23.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
To
1.The Secretary
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Secretary
Agricultural Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
3.The Director
Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
4.The Chief Executive Officer,
State Level Nodal Agency,
TANCOF Building No.55,
Thiru Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate,
Ekkattuthangal
Chennai-600 032.
5.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
6.The Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development)
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No2.17009, 17021,17026 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Ns
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD)Nos.17009, 17021 and 17026 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.14219 to 14221, 14228,14229,14231,14233,14235 and
14236 of 2020
23.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
