Madras High Court

S.Raghu vs The Commissioner on 4 January, 2024

                                                                                          W.P.No.15475 of 2021

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 04.01.2024

                                                            CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                   W.P. No.15475 of 2021 and
                                                   W.M.P.No.16409 of 2021

                     S.Raghu                                                        ...          Petitioner

                                                                 Vs.

                     1. The Commissioner,
                        Rural Development and Panchayatraj,
                        Panagal Maligai, 4th & 5th floor,
                        Abdul Razzak Street, Saidapet,
                        Chennai - 600 015.

                     2. The District Collector,
                        Krishnagiri District.

                     3. Block Development Officer,
                        Kelamangalam Block,
                        Krishnagiri District.                                       ...     Respondents

                                  Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to regularize the
                     services of the petitioner in the post of Computer Assistant / Computer
                     Operator in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Kelamangalam
                     Block in line with the recommendation of the third Respondents in


                     Page 1 of 9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.P.No.15475 of 2021

                     Na.Ka.No.3147/2012/A1, dated 26.10.2012 in line with the Judgment of
                     this Court in W.P.No.6595 of 2018 dated 28.08.2019 from the date of
                     initial appointment with all service and monetary benefits.


                                       For Petitioner    :      Ms.Dakshayani Reddy,
                                                                Senior Counsel for
                                                                Ms.Suneetha
                                       For Respondents
                                       For R1 and R2   :        Mr.R.Neethi Perumal,
                                                                Government Advocate
                                       For R3             :     Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal

                                                              ORDER

The petitioner was appointed as a Daily wager to operate Computers

at Kelamangalam Panchayat Union on 15.06.2002 and his wages are being

paid from the Public funds of the Panchayat. The proposals are said to

have been forwarded to the District Collector, Krishnagiri to regularize the

similarly placed candidates in the year 2012. Since they were not

regularized, they have filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6595 of 2018 in

which orders have been passed to regularize the service of the petitioners

therein. However, the respondents went on appeal by filing a Writ Appeal

in W.A.No.3954 of 2019 in which orders have been passed by modifying

the order of the Single Judge to the effect that those candidates who have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

completed 10 years of service should be regularized by extending the

benefits of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and

Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013 and in the case of

persons who had not completed 10 years of service, preference should be

given in the matter of appointment through advertisement.

2. Relying on the said Judgment, the learned counsel for the

petitioner pressed that the petitioner would also come within the ambit of

those persons whose services are directed to be regularized. Hence, he

prays for regularizing the service of the petitioner in accordance with the

recommendation made by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3147/2012/A1,

dated 26.10.2012.

3. Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, learned Government Advocate appearing

for the Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner was not directly

engaged in the 3rd respondent and he was only an out source engaged

through the out sourcing agent. Since the petitioner claims regularization

through back door entry, he does not come within the exceptions carved

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (Secretary, State

Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1) and hence

he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4. On perusal of records, it is seen that in response to the telephonic

conversation of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent office has sent the

list of persons who had engaged on daily wage basis for more than 10

years. Even though in the Duty Certificate dated 12.10.2012, it has been

stated by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner has been working as

Computer Operator from 15.06.2002 to 30.07.2008 through an out

sourcing agent, the appointment order has been issued by the 3rd

respondent on 15.11.2002, which shows that the petitioner was engaged

directly by the 3rd respondent and his salary was credited in the account of

the petitioner directly and not though any out sourcing agent.

5. It is seen from the records that similarly placed persons have filed

a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6595 of 2019 and the respondents have raised the

similar contention through the said Writ Proceedings as well. After dealing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

with the submissions of both sides and by making distinction from

Umadevi's case, the learned Single Judge has observed after extracting the

work from the petitioners, it is unfair to keep them on daily rated basis.

The Government had issued various Government Orders for the

regularization of the temporary casual employees in various departments.

So it is the benevolence shown in the case of Computer Operators as well.

By stating so, the learned Single Judge issued direction to the respondents

therein to extend the benefits of the various Government Orders, for

regularizing the petitioners therein after examining their claims

sympathetically.

6. The Respondents had challenged the said order by way of appeal

in W.A.No.3954 of 2019. On appeal the Division Bench of this Court had

modified the order passed in the Writ Petition to the effect that the benefits

of the G.O.Ms.No.74, dated Personnel and Administrative Reforms

Department, dated 27.06.2013 can be extended to the similarly placed

Computer Operators who have completed 10 years of service. So far as the

persons who had not completed 10 years of service, it is suggested to give

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

preference in the matter of appointment when recruitment was made

through advertisement. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraph

is extracted hereunder:

“12. It is not in dispute that, Writ Petitioners have been irregularly appointed by the Panchayat Unions. Admittedly, there is no violation on the part of the employees and the Government has given a go-by to the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) and continued the Writ Petitioners in service. That apart, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.161, Rural Development Department, dated 26.06.2000, which was superseded by G.O.Ms. No.74, dated 27.06.2013. Even going by the stand of the Government, employees vide S.Nos.1 to 4 have already completed 10 years of service and the benefits accrued by means of a Government Order cannot be taken away by means of a subsequent Government Order. Hence, we are of the view that, Writ Petitioners vide S.Nos.1 to 4 will have to be regularized.

13. It is not in dispute that, the Writ Petitioner viz.

R.Thirumozhi vide S.No.17 is not in service. Insofar as Writ Petitioners vide S.Nos.5 to 19 except S.No.17 are concerned, as they are employed as Computer Operators, and that, manual Typewriters have been dispensed with as on date, we are of the view that, these persons will have to be regularized

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

in service, provided there is an Advertisement for the purpose of recruitment and they participate in the selection process. In such an event, these persons will have to be given preference over others in respect of age, caste, etc. for regularization of their service and if they are found fit, their services will have to be regularized on and from the date of their completion of ten years of service.

7. Even though the respondents have stated that the petitioner was

never engaged by the 3rd respondent directly, the records would show that

his engagement was direct and he was in service for more than 10 years.

Only in view of that, in the list of candidates sent in response to the

telephonic message of the District Collector, the 3rd respondent name has

also been included.

8. Since the petitioner's case squarely falls under the earlier

Judgements of this Court in W.A.No.3954 of 2019 and he has completed

10 years of service, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the

petitioner sympathetically for the purpose of his regularization and pass

favourable orders as expeditiously as possible.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis