Madras High Court
R.Muthuvel vs The Commissioner Cum Chief ... on 1 March, 2023
WP.No.35169 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P.No.35169 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
R.Muthuvel .... Petitioner
vs
1. The Commissioner cum Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Agricultural Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Trichy.
4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Manikandam, Trichy District. .... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1 st
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
respondent in connection with the impugned letter No.5639/VNi4(1)/2014-4
dated 10.06.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to absorb the petitioner in the regular vacancy sanctioned as per
G.O.(P)243 Agriculture (Vni4) Department dated 10.12.2013 in regular
time scale of pay on relaxing the relevant Rules for appointment, as done in
similar cases in various Departments.
For Petitioner : Ms.T.Aananthi
For respondents : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a watchman on daily wage basis on
16.08.1999 under the control of the 4th respondent. However, he was not
regularized in service till date. The Government has issued orders to
regularize the services of numerous casual labourers employed by
Government department. As per the various Government orders those who
have completed 10 years of service were directed to be regularized.
G.O.Ms.No.74, P& AR Department dated 27.06.2013 has been issued with
certain restrictions with regard to age, appointment through Employment
office, part time working etc. Subsequently, G.O.71 RW & P Department
dated 12.02.2014 has been passed relaxing the restrictions relating to age
and appointment through Employment office passed in G.O.No.74, P& AR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
Department dated 27.06.2013. The 1st respondent passed G.O.(P) No.243
Agri.Department dated 10.12.2013 granting permission to the 2nd
respondent to fill up 769 posts in Agriculture Department and 37 posts at
Agricultural Engineering department, totally 856 posts of Watchman,
Masdoor, Masalsi and Sweepers. Therefore, the petitioner approached this
Court in W.P.No.5228 of 2014, in which, by order dated 21.02.2014, this
Court directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner
for regularization in the light of the Government Orders and to pass
appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks. The 1st respondent, by
Government Letter No.5639/VNi4(1)/2014-4 dated 10.06.2014, rejected the
request of the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before
this Court.
2. Heard the submission of both the sides.
3. From the perusal of the materials, it is seen that in identical
circumstances, several casual labourers working in very same Agricultural
Department have approached this Court by way of writ petitions and one
such case is W.P.No.5039/2015. This Court citing the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar's case and the order passed in
S.L.P.No.9110 and 9111 of 2013 dated 29.04.2013 directed the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
to regularize the petitioner therein within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order. Against the same, the Government
preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.536 of 2022 and the same was dismissed
on 13.04.2022. Again, an SLP was preferred against the Division Bench
order in SLP(C) No.016850/2022 which was also dismissed on 30.09.2022.
Thereafter, order was passed regularising the service of the petitioner
therein. Like wise in the case of one Anbazhagan, the Government relaxed
the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.74 P& AR Department dated
27.06.2013 and implemented the order of the Court by regularizing him in
G.O.Ms.No.205 Town Development Department dated 18.12.2014. In yet
another case, in G.O.Ms.No.71, Rural Development Department dated
12.02.2014, the conditions specified in G.O.Ms.No.74 were relaxed apart
from giving age relaxation and non sponsoring through Employment
Exchange. Thus, in quite a number of cases, the Government has relaxed the
rules and regularized the employee from the date of completion of 10 years.
In the instant case, the petitioner has also completed more than 15 years of
service.
4. Government has taken a consistent stand before this Court that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
order of regularization is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi and Ors , AIR 2006 SC 1806 as
well as Civil Appeal Nos.2730 and 2731 of 2014 in the case of Secretary to
Government, School Education Department, Chennai.
5. It is to be noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Uma Devi's case has been distinguished in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 dated
13.11.2017, wherein it has been observed as under:
"8..... We have to strike a balance to really implement
the ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time has come to
stop the situation where Uma Devi (supra) 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 Uma Devi (supra)
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/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind
of action is not permissible, when we consider the pith and
substance of true spirit in Uma Devi (supra).
9. Coming to the facts of the instant case, there was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
direction issued way back in the year 1999, to consider the
regularization of the appellants. However, regularization 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 learned 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.
10. The High Court dismissed the writ application
relying on the decision in Uma Devi (supra). But the
appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had
rendered service for three years, when they were offered the
service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door
entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind
of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be
illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their
temporary status was conferred w.e.f. 2.10.2002. The
appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as
a one time measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Uma
Devi (supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of
service and temporary status had been given by the
respondents with retrospective effect in the 2.10.2002, we
direct that the services of the appellants be regularized from
the said date i.e. 2.10.2002, consequential benefits and the
arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a
period of three months from today."
6. Therefore, it is very clear that the judgment of Uma Devi can be
applied only in cases where illegal appointments are made denying the
opportunity of the people who are waiting before the Employment
Exchange. Such back door appointments shall be considered as illegal
cannot be regularized at any cost. But, when Government has adopted the
procedure of engaging casual labourers indiscriminately and has taken a
policy decision to regularize them on completion of 10 years of service, they
cannot turn around and state such engagements are illegal. Non sponsoring
through Employment Exchange may be an irregular method, the
Government in an unavoidable circumstances have engaged casual labourers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
for getting their work done. Those casual labourers have continued for more
than ten years. It is also relevant to state that those last grade servants does
not require any educational qualification to do those menial works. In such
circumstances, selection or engagement of casual labourers may not undergo
regular selection method of getting sponsor from Employment Exchange or
adherence to rules. Once a decision is taken to regularize the casual
labourers it shall be uniformly applied.
7. In the instant case, it is noted that by way of several Government
Orders, the restriction imposed in G.O.Ms.No.274 dated 27.06.2013 as well
as the rules with regard to age, educational qualification and reference
through Employment Exchange were relaxed and their service were
regularized. When a particular treatment was given to a person in the very
same department, it shall be extended to the similarly placed persons of the
very same department. The respondent department cannot take different
stands with regard to its own employees. Once a decision is taken in
implementing the orders of regularization, it shall be extended to all the
people who are similarly placed. Therefore, if it is not extended inspite of the
direction given by the Court it amounts to discrimination. Such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
discriminatory treatment is violative of principles of natural justice, doctrine
of equality and it will amount to arbitrary exercise of power.
8. In such of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar's case
reported in 2018(13) SCC 432, will squarely apply to this case. Following
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment as well as
the orders passed in S.L.P.Nos.9110 and 9111 of 2013 dated 29.04.2013,
this Court is inclined to grant relief as prayed for.
9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 10.06.2014 is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass orders
regularizing the service of petitioner in the light of the above Government
Orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
01.03.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
To
1. The Commissioner cum Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Agricultural Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3. The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Trichy.
4. The Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Manikandam, Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.35169 of 2014
J.NISHA BANU,J.
vsi
W.P.No.35169 of 2014
01.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
