Madras High Court
G.Ponnusamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 March, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD).No.14826 of 2016
G.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Rural Development Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Commissioner,
Srivilliputhur Panchayat Union,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
5.The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayat),
Srivilliputhur Panchayat Union,
Sirvilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
6.The District Siddha Medical Officer,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
7.The Medical Officer,
The Government Primary Health Centre,
Maraneri – 626 124,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records on the file of the fourth and fifth respondents in connection with the
impugned orders of rejection passed by them in their Proceedings in
Na.Ka.A7/3610/2009 and Na.Ka.A1/2687/2013 dated 02.02.2012 and
03.09.2014 respectively and quash the both as illegal and arbitrary and
consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service from
the date of initial appointment i.e., 01.02.1988 with all service and monetary
benefits as done in the case of one Mr.K.Ramasami in the light of Judgment
pronounced by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.33236/2003 dated 11.05.2011
within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai,
Government Advocate (Civil Side).
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order
dated 02.02.2012 and 03.09.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to
regularize the petitioner's service from the date of initial appointment that is
01.02.1988 with all service and monetary benefits as done in the case of
similarly placed persons namely K.Ramasami in the light of judgment in
W.P.No.33236 of 2003 dated 11.05.2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has passed
SSLC and has registered in the District Employment Exchange, Virudhunagar
in Seniority No.3048/82/79. Based on the request made by the fourth
respondent, the petitioner's name was sponsored to him under the open category
for the post of Medical Attender on 18.08.1987 and the petitioner had
participated in the Selection process and in view of the Resolution passed by
the Panchayat Union, he was appointed in the regular vacant place at Medical
centre, Poolani Village vide proceedings dated 29.01.1988. The contention of
the petitioner is that even though he was appointed in the regular vacancy, he
has been paid under the Miscellaneous Head and the respondents are liable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
pay under time scale of pay. The fourth respondent vide proceedings in
Na.Ka.A1/6212/94 dated 20.01.1995 request the second respondent to pay the
time scale of pay. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the second
respondent also. The District Collector has raised a certain query regarding the
petitioner's appointment in proceedings dated 20.04.1996 for which the fourth
respondent has replied that the contingent staff post was vacant from
14.11.1985 and they did not have the knowledge about the ban stated in
G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 05.02.1987. Therefore, the fourth
respondent has appointed the petitioner already. Later, the petitioner's service
was already regularized with effect from the date of joining through
proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 20.03.1997. Later on, the fourth
respondent vide proceedings dated 04.06.1997 informed the second respondent
that the Unions are not having the knowledge about the ban in appointment.
Since the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post, the petitioner
approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6939/1999.
After issuance of notice, the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated
12.03.1999 addressed to the second respondent that the Panchayat Union is not
having knowledge and requested to grant ratification to the said appointee. In
the meanwhile, the petitioner was threatened by the official respondents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
withdraw the said application and they also assured to consider the petitioner's
claim. Due to the abolition of Tribunal, the petition was renumbered W.P.No.
43300/2006. The fourth respondent has regularized the similarly placed
persons namely Sundarraj and Ramamoorthy who have also filed the Writ
Petition and later withdrew the same. However, the respondents have not
considered the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved over the respondents attitude, the
petitioner preferred this Writ Petition.
3. The fourth respondent has filed a counter stating that the
vacancy arose for the post of Attender in Rural Dispensary, Poovani Village in
Srivilliputhur Panchayat Union. With the permission of the Panchayat Union
Council, a list of qualified persons was called for from the Employment
Exchange. On receipt of the list of qualified persons, interview was conducted
for 20 persons and on successful completion of interview, the petitioner was
selected and appointed as Attendar in Rural Dispensary, Poovani as Contingent
employee as per the proceedings No.R1/6582/85 dated 29.01.1988 and it was
resolved in Panchayat Union Council's Resolution No.386 dated 11.12.1987.
The appointment is purely temporary. Further it was indicated through the
proceedings dated 29.01.1988 that he would be paid at the rates applicable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
the full time contingency employees. The petitioner stated that he submitted
his representation dated 23.11.1995 that he may be paid in the time scale of pay.
As per G.O.Ms.No.88, R.D & L.A. Department dated 08.01.1971, the
Panchayat Union Commissioner is the appointing authority for such last grade
servants. The service of the petitioner in the cadre of last grade Government
servant (Attendar) was regularized by the then Panchayat Commissioner in the
proceedings No.Roc.A1/3345/96 dated 20.03.1997 with effect from 01.02.1988
besides declaring satisfactory completion of his probation period of one year
from 01.02.1988 to 31.01.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner's proposal was
submitted to the DRD., Chennai with a detailed report covering the
appointment of the petitioner in the Office Letter dated 01.12.1997 and
31.12.1997. The petitioner's appointment would be regularized as soon the
orders are received from DRD, Chennai for regularizing his service.
4. Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) for the
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
5. Admittedly, there was a procedure prevailing before 1987 that
the contingent employee shall be appointed in the regular vacancy. The
Government after issuing G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 05.02.1987
thereby banned the appointment order for contingent employees in the
permanent vacancy. The contention of the fourth respondent is that the
G.O.Ms.No.107 was not available and the respondents have no knowledge of it.
The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“nkw;go Miz gzp epakdk; bra;a[k;nghJ jftYf;F
tug;bgwhj fhuzj;jhy; rpy;yiur; brytpdg; gzpahsuhf
jpU.F.bghd;Dr;rhkp vd;gtiu cldhshf epakdk;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ”
6. It is seen from the records that the said Government Order was
not available to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent was not aware
of it. It is seen that the petitioner has put in service from the year 1988 onwards.
The petitioner is 56 years old at the time of filing the writ petition and he has
attained superannuation as on date. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent ought to be
considered by the first respondent. The first respondent cannot rely the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
G.O.Ms.No.107 and deny the regularization to the petitioner. Therefore, the
first respondent is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner based on
the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent in his proceedings dated
31.12.1997 in the light of the Panchayat Council Resolution No.386 dated
11.12.1987 and regularize the service of the petitioner and pay all attendant and
monetary benefits that is applicable to the post. However, it is made clear that
the petitioner is not entitled to any interest. The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
7. It is made clear that this order is passed based on the facts and
circumstances of the case and this order shall not be shown as precedent. With
the above observation and direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
31.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rural Development Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Rural Development,
Panagal Building,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Commissioner,
Srivilliputhur Panchayat Union,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
5.The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayat),
Srivilliputhur Panchayat Union,
Sirvilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
6.The District Siddha Medical Officer,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
7.The Medical Officer,
The Government Primary Health Centre,
Maraneri – 626 124, Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Nsr
W.P.(MD).No.20757 of 2016
31.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
