Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs M.Mani on 4 January, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD)No.1116 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.(MD)No.1116 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015
1.The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
3.The Special Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Periyar – Vaigai Project,
Tallakulam, Madurai – 2.
4.Executive Engineer,
Maintenance and Quality Control Division,
Public Works Department,
Tallakulam, Madurai – 2. ... Appellants
vs.
M.Mani ... Respondent
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1116 of 2015
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent, against the
order dated 05.06.2021, in W.P.(MD)No.12319 of 2011.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sachikumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
This appeal is filed by the State, being aggrieved by the order passed by
this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12319 of 2011, dated 05.06.2014.
2. The sum and substance of the impugned order is that the respondent/writ
petitioner, who joined as a driver in the Public Works Department, was
regularized in the year 1989 pursuant to the order passed by the Government in
G.O.(Ms)No.2394, Public Works Department, dated 29.11.1989 and direction of
this Court in a Writ Petition filed by one K.Kasinathan. The respondent/writ
petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2001. Thereafter, he made representation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to relate back his regularization from 1981, the date on which, he joined as driver
on daily wage basis. Since the same was rejected, the respondent/writ petitioner
filed W.P.(MD)No.12319 of 2011. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this
Court, vide order dated 05.06.2014, wherein the State was directed to fix the pay
of the respondent/writ petitioner on par with other persons, who were absorbed on
completion of 10 years of service from the date of their appointment as drivers.
3. In this appeal, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the State/appellants submitted that the respondent initially, joined as a Helper in
the Manjalar Dam Division and later, appointed as Cleaner. Thereafter, based on
G.O.Ms.No.461, Public Works Department, dated 15.03.1980, ad hoc rules were
framed and under the ad hoc rules, he served as a driver. While so, the Public
Works Department taking note of the requirement of permanent drivers on a
particular pay scale, issued G.O.(Ms)No.2394, dated 29.11.1989, wherein 22
persons, who satisfied the conditions enumerated in the Government Order, were
appointed taking into consideration their past experience in the Department as
daily wagers on an ad hoc basis without possessing the requisite educational
qualification. The respondent/writ petitioner – M.Mani is one among the 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
persons and from that date onwards, his service has been regularized and
retirement benefits were also given to him. While so, after retirement, citing his
earlier representation, which was duly rejected by the Department, the Writ
Petition has been filed to relate back his date of regularization from 1981.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants, without requisite qualification, on an ad hoc and
daily wage basis, the respondent/writ petitioner has been served as a driver and
cleaner. His appointment as driver was only pursuant to G.O.(Ms)No.2394, dated
29.11.1989. His past service on ad hoc and daily wage basis without adequate
qualification, cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits or any
other service benefits. The learned Judge has failed to take note of the fact that
the respondent's earlier service prior to 29.11.1989 is neither based on proper
process of requirement or in tune with service rules. It was purely temporary and
on ad hoc and daily wage basis. There is no provision in the service law to
consider the intermittent service as daily wager. In fact, there is no material
placed by the respondent/writ petitioner to even infer that how he was appointed
and when he was appointed and how long he was serving as a driver in the Public
Works Department prior to 29.11.1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Having waited for more than 12 years, after his appointment, a request
for considering his past service as daily wager, cannot be entertained without any
supporting documents. In the impugned order, without any basis, the Writ
Petition has been allowed and therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge,
has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No [G.J., J.] [C.K., J.]
NCC : Yes / No 04.01.2024
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
smn2
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
