Madras High Court
The District Collector vs A.K.Karuppannan on 8 December, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.3364 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.3364 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.21603 of 2019
1 The District Collector
Erode District Erode
2 The Block Development Officer
Sathyamangalam Panchayat Union
Sathyamangalam Erode Dist. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1 A.K.Karuppannan
2 K.Ganesan
3 The President
Sadhumugal Village Panchayat Grade-I
Sathumugai Sathyamangalam Tk Erode Dist. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in
W.P.No.10965 of 2009 dated 03.04.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel - for R1
Mr.N.Chinnaraj - for R2
Mr.V.Jeeva Giridharan - for R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
W.A.No.3364 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the
Writ Court dated 03.04.2019 dated W.P.No.10965 of 2009.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein were appointed or engaged as Watchman-
cum-Motor Pump Operator on 28.10.1987 and 22.03.1996 respectively, which is an
admitted fact as it has been admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the District
Collector before the writ Court, which reads thus:
" 5. I admit the fact stated in Para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition that the Ist Petitioner was joined as Watchman-cum-motor
pump operator on 28.10.1987 and the 2nd respondent was joined on
22.03.1996 in the 3rd respondent Panchayat on daily wages basis."
Though it was claimed by these employees that the first employee
Karuppannan was appointed on 19.05.1986, the District Collector says that he was
appointed only on 28.10.1987. Insofar as the second employee viz., Ganesan is
concerned, it was his claim that he was appointed on 22.03.1996. This has been
accepted by the District Collector in the aforesaid counter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Therefore, the fact remains that admittedly both of them have been
appointed and had been working on daily wages for all these years from 1986 or
1987 and 1996. The daily wage that was fixed at the time of their initial
appointment was a very meagre amount of Rs.11 per day. That daily wage time and
again had to be enhanced, but even that was not done. Therefore, a writ petition in
W.P.No.19396 of 2000 was filed by Karuppannan, where an order was passed by
this Court on 13.01.2003. Pursuant to the said order, by taking into account
G.O.Ms.No.60, Rural Development Department dated 03.05.2005, enhanced salary
has been fixed for them by way of daily wage and they had been continuing as daily
wage employees for all these years. When that being so, the Government had come
forward to issue G.O.Ms.No.22, P&AR Department dated 28.02.2006, under which
the Government had taken a policy decision that those who had been working on
daily wages basis or temporary basis for several years and completed 10 years of
service as on 01.01.2006 in various Government Departments would be regularized.
4. In view of the said G.O.No.22, the employees herein viz., Karuppannan
and Ganesan had requested the District Collector for regularisation of their services
on completion of 10 years of service as per G.O.No.22 referred to above. The said
request having been considered, was rejected by the District Collector by an order
dated 15.04.2009, wherein the District Collector had taken a stand that, G.O.No.22,
P.&A.R.Department dated 28.02.2006 would be applicable only to daily wage
employees working in the Government Departments for regularization and the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government Order cannot be extended to daily wage employees working in
Panchayats or local bodies. That is how the plea of the employees was rejected by
the District Collector by order dated 15.04.2009 which was under challenge in the
writ petition filed by both these employees in W.P.No.10965 of 2009.
5. The said writ petition was heard and decided by the learned Judge through
the impugned order dated 03.04.2019, wherein the learned Judge, insofar as the
first respondent Karuppannan is concerned, had given a direction to regularize his
services within the meaning of G.O.No.22. However, insofar as the other respondent
Ganesan is concerned, the direction that was given was, since he has not completed
10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 ie., the cut-off date fixed by the said
G.O.No.22, he should approach the competent authority under the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to
Workmen) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Permanency Act').
6. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the writ court the present intra
Court appeal has been directed by the District Collector and another. Mr.K.V.Sajeev
Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State would
contend that, even though a specific plea was raised by the District Collector stating
that G.O.No.22 dated 28.02.1996 to regularize the services of daily wage employees
cannot be made applicable outside the Government Department like the local bodies,
Panchayats etc., the said plea raised on behalf of the Government / District Collector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was rejected by the learned Judge without any plausible reason. In this context, the
learned Special Government Pleader invites the attention of this Court with regard to
the import of G.O.No.22, which reads thus,
" 2. Based on the announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister
on 08.02.2006, the Government direct that the services of the daily wages
employees working in all Government Departments who have rendered 10
years of service as on 01.01.2006 be regularized by appointing them in
the time scale of pay for the post concerned, subject to their being
otherwise qualified for the post.
3. The Departments of Secretariat may, therefore, be directed to
pursue action to regularize the services of the daily wages employees
working in all Government Departments, who have rendered 10 years of
service as on 01.01.2006 as ordered in para 2 above, in consultation with
the respective Heads of Departments wherever necessary. In special
cases wherein relaxation of rules is required, proposal shall be sent to
Government."
7. Relying upon G.O.No.22 the learned Special Government Pleader would
contend that the words "the Government direct that the services of the daily wages
employees working in all Government Departments who have rendered 10 years of
service as on 01.01.2006 be regularized" and the words " The Departments of
Secretariat may, therefore, be directed to pursue action to regularize the services of
the daily wages employees working in all Government Departments, who have
rendered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006" makes it very clear that the benefit
of regularization on completion of ten years of service as daily wager as on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.01.2006 would be made applicable to those who had been working on daily wage
basis only in various Government Departments.
8. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that,
first of all the import of G.O.No.22 ought not to have been applied to these two
employees, as they have been admittedly engaged only in Village Panchayat and
therefore it does not come within the purview of G.O.No.22. That apart, the learned
Special Government Pleader would contend that, if these employees are not entitled
to seek for the benefit of regularization within the meaning of G.O.No.22, they are
not otherwise entitled to seek regularization. Therefore, the direction given in
respect of the first employee viz., Karuppannan to regularize his services within the
meaning of G.O.No.22 is erroneous. Hence, the learned Special Government
Pleader would seek the indulgence of this Court to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Judge which is impugned herein.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1
and 2 ie., the employees would contend that G.O.No.22 even though has used the
words "Government Departments", local bodies also come under the purview of the
Government for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, in all
probability, the import of G.O.No.22 can be extended to the employees engaged in
local bodies also including Village Panchayats. He would also submit that, insofar as
the employees who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Village Panchayats
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Town Panchayats are concerned, the Government has come forward to isssue
the Government Order ie., G.O.No.242 dated 10.12.2009, Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department. Under the said Government Order, the daily wage
employees who had been engaged at various local bodies and had completed 10
years of service as on 31.10.2008 can be considered for regularization. According to
the said decision taken by the Government, after getting the report from the
Directorate of Town Panchayats, 189 such employees were listed out. Out of the
said list, some of them left the services or died and therefore 174 employees who
were working as on the date of issuance of the Government Order ie., 10.12.2009
were directed to be regularized from the date of the Government Order.
10. Therefore, relying upon G.O.No.242, the learned counsel for the
employees has submitted that, both the employees can be considered under
G.O.No.22 as has been directed by the learned Judge. Assuming that G.O.No.22
cannot be made applicable to these employees, G.O.No.242 can be made applicable
and such benefit that has been extended to the 189 people (174 in actual) can be
extended to these two employees also, as they are similarly placed. Therefore, in
any event the direction given by the learned Judge to regularize the services of the
first employee viz., Karuppannan is justifiable and insofar as the second employee
viz., Ganesan is concerned, he need not be driven to go before the authority under
the Permanency Act, instead, his case also can be considered within the purview of
G.O.No.242, as the cut off date fixed in the said G.O., is 31.10.2008. Therefore, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 31.10.2008, since the second respondent Ganesan also completed 10 years of
service, he can also be considered for extending the benefit of regularization.
Therefore, both of them are eligible to get regularization and hence the learned
counsel for the employees want to sustain the impugned order passed by the writ
Court, they contended.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side and have perused the materials placed on record.
12. The first controversy that has to be resolved is as to whether, the import
of G.O.No.22 can be made applicable to the two employees viz., the respondents 1
and 2 herein or not. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader has
contended by relying upon the import of the very Government Order itself by relying
upon the words used in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Government Order, which we
have quoted herein above.
13. If we peruse the said Government Order No.22 in Paragraphs 2 and 3, as
has been rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the appellant, the language used is " services of the daily wage employees
working in all Government Departments" and the language used that " Department
of Secretariat may therefore be directed to pursue action to regularize the services
of the daily wage employees working in various Government Departments" and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
makes it clear that G.O.No.22 was issued mainly intended to give such benefit of
regularization on completion of 10 years of service by the daily wage employees
who had been engaged in various Government Departments. The import of the
Government Order is not extended to the local bodies also as nowhere it has been
stated in the said Government Order.
14. Therefore, insofar as the objection that has been raised on behalf of the
Department ie., the District Collector which has been recorded in paragraph 8 of the
impugned order of the learned Judge ought to have been accepted by the writ
Court. However, the learned Judge has rejected such plea and when we peruse the
reasons for rejecting such plea, we do not find any plausible reason. Therefore, to
that extent, the view taken by the learned Judge can very well be construed as
erroneous view. Therefore, that aspect has to be interfered with.
15. But at the same time, the direction given in respect of the second
respondent Ganesan by the learned Judge to approach the authority under the
Permanency Act is concerned, that direction need not have been given because, the
Government considered the issue as to whether the benefit of regularization of
temporary employees ie., daily wage employees who had been engaged by various
local bodies like Panchayats etc., and who have completed 10 years of service, and
has come forward to issue G.O.No.242 dated 10.12.2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. In the said Government Order, based on the report submitted by the
Directorate of Town Panchayats, only 189 such people have been taken into account
as stated in the annexure, where though the names of the respondents have not
been mentioned, that would not ipso facto make these employees dis-entitled to get
such benefit because, it is the admitted case on the part of the District Collector as
we have quoted herein above, in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed before
the writ Court that, the first respondent was engaged from 28.10.1987 and the
second respondent was engaged from 22.03.1996. Even though the date in respect
of the first employee Karuppannan was disputed by the learned counsel for the
employee stating that he was engaged on 19.05.1986, be that as it may, assuming
that he has been engaged on 28.10.1987, insofar as the ten years service required
within the cut off date as per G.O.No.242 since is only 31.10.1998, both the
employees have completed ten years of service.
17. They have not completed the ten years of service is not the case of the
District Collector or any official respondents. However, their only objection was such
a regularization may not be possible within the meaning of G.O.No.22. Assuming
that it is not possible under G.O.No.22, this kind of regularization can very well be
extended to these employees within the meaning of G.O.No.242 dated 10.12.2009.
The Government may take an objection stating that, as on the issuance of the G.O.,
ie., 10.12.2009 even as per the report of the Directorate of Town and Country
Planning only 189 employees have been found eligible as they were working on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
daily wage basis and therefore beyond the 189 employees no other employees
claimed to have been working in various local bodies can be considered for the
purpose of extending the benefit under G.O.No.242. Such an objection cannot be
countenanced for the simple reason that, insofar as these two employees are
concerned, it is the admitted case that they were engaged in the year 1987 and
1996 respectively. Therefore, as on 31.10.2008 they had very well completed 10
years of service and the benefit that has been indicated in G.O.No.242 as stated
supra can very well be extended to these employees also.
18. In view of this legal and factual position, we are of the view that the
impugned order insofar as it rejected the plea of the Government / District Collector
with regard to the application of G.O.No.22 is concerned, can be interfered with and
as a sequel, we are inclined to dispose of this writ appeal with the following
directions.
(a) The impugned order insofar as it rejected the plea of the District
Collector that the import of G.O.No.22 P & AR Department dated
28.02.2006 shall not be made applicable to the respondents 1 and
2 are concerned. That finding is liable to be set aside and
accordingly it is set aside.
(b) However these employees, for the reason stated herein above, are
entitled to seek the benefit of regularization within the meaning of
G.O.No.242, Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department dated 10.12.2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(c) Therefore, there shall be a direction to the appellant District
Collector to take steps to regularize the services of these two
employees who had admittedly completed 10 years of service well
before the cut off date viz., 31.10.2008 as per G.O.No.242 and
such regularization shall be made from the date of the Government
Order No.242 dated 10.12.2009 as the other similarly placed
persons have been given the benefit of regularization from the
date of the Government Order.
(d) The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the District
Collector within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
(e) It is needless to mention that, once the regularization process is
complete, it takes effect from 10.12.2009, and the respondents 1
and 2 are entitled to get the service and financial benefits which
shall be calculated and be paid to them within the said period of
three months.
(f) It is brought to our notice that the first respondent Karuppannan
retired from service on 31.03.2017. Therefore, the service benefits
and other financial benefits till his superannuation can be
calculated and be paid to him. Consequently, his pension be
revised and accordingly his pensionary benefits also be extended to
him.
(g) The Government may say that these employees may not be
entitled to get the pension insofar as that aspect is concerned. It is
also made clear 50% of the past service rendered by them from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the date of their initial engagement shall be taken into account for
the purpose of calculating pension and accordingly their pension be
calculated and paid to them.
19. With the above directions, the above writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K.,J..) (G.A.M.,J.)
08.12.2023
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
KST
To
The President
Sadhumugal Village Panchayat Grade-I
Sathumugai Sathyamangalam Tk Erode Dist.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
KST
08.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
