Madras High Court
R.Saravanan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 October, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
W.A(MD).No.881 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.881 of 2019
R.Saravanan .... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary
Revenue Department
St.George Fort,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The The Commissioner of Revenue
Administration
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3.The District Collector
Kanyakumari District
Kanyakumari. ....Respondents/Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD).No.881 of 2019
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.18456 of 2014, dated
11.07.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The Writ Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner in
W.P.(MD)No.18456 of 2014 aggrieved by the order, dated 11.07.2019,
by which order, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition.
2. W.P.(MD)No. 18456 of 2014 had been filed in the nature
of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents therein to
pass orders on a representation, dated 22.09.2014 and to regularise the
services of the petitioner as Watchman in the Cycle Stand at the
Collectorate, Nagercoil, with effect from 10.05.1999. The writ petitioner
placed reliance on G.O.(Ms)No.22, Personnel and Administrate Reforms
(F) Department, dated 28.02.2006. He also placed reliance on the
interpretation of this Court in W.P.No.16110 of 2012 dated 26.06.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The facts are that the petitioner was engaged as a
Watchman on daily wages at the Cycle Stand in the Collectorate at
Nagercoil, on and from 10.05.1999. It is contended that he had been
continuously working in the said post. In the meanwhile, on 28.02.2006
G.O.(Ms)No.22, Personnel and Administrate Reforms (F) Department,
came to be issued. It provided that those who had completed 10 years of
service could be brought into regular service.
4. The name of the petitioner had been recommended by the
first respondent, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department, who had addressed a letter to the Additional Commissioner
of Revenue Administration, dated 14.10.2005. In the said letter, the
Officer had stated as follows:
“I am directed to invite attention to letters that
and second cited and he request you to arrange to
obtain and send the necessary proposal from the
concerned Collectorate with full details of service
particulars of the following individuals along with
their service books, together with the
recommendation of the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Revenue Administration for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examination at Government level as no
proposals/service particulars are available in
Government in respect of them.”
In the annexure enclosed, the name of the petitioner was found in
Sl.No.2 - R.Saravanan -Watchman - Kanyakumari District.
5. In G.O.(Ms)No.22, Personnel and Administrate Reforms
(F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, it had been provided as follows :
“2. Based on the announcement made by the
Hon'ble Chief Minister on 08.02.2005, 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
regularised by appointing them in the time scale of pay
of the post in accordance with the service conditions
prescribed for the post concerned subject to their
being otherwise qualified for the post.”
6. The request of the petitioner came to be rejected, on the
ground that he had not completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006.
That as a fact is correct, since he had joined service only in the year
1999. But however, the said G.O.(Ms)No.22, Personnel and Administrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 came to be examined by a
Full Bench of this Court and the judgment of Full Bench is reported in
2024 (2) CTC 1 in M.Sivappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others,
wherein, very specifically owing to difference of opinion by the Division
Benches whether on the stipulation of restrictions of completing 10 years
of service as on 01.01.2006 could be insisted upon, the Full Bench had
finally concluded as follows :
“38. In fine, we hold
(a) If it shown that the appointment is
made to anyone of the 86 categories of posts
enumerated in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service
immaterial of the fact that whether such
appointment is part-time or full-time, the
employee would be entitled to the benefit of
regularisation dehors G.O.Ms.No.74 dated
27.06.2013.
(b) If it is shown that the nature of
employment is temporary and the requirement
will cease to exist after a particular time, like
those appointments that are made under
various welfare schemes, it will then be open
to the Government to engage temporary
employees or part-time employees.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
39. We conclude that the judgments in State of
Tamil Nadu. by its Secretary, Public Works
Department, and another vs. S. John Charles and
others, W.A.Nos.2875 & 2644 of 2018, etc., dated
16.08.2019 and State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
Secretary to Government, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department and others vs
K.Rajakrishnan, W.A.(MD)No.836 & 837 of 2014,
dated 05.07.2023 cannot be taken as laying down an
inflexible rule of law that any part-time or temporary
employee who has completed 10 years of service on
28.02.2006 will not be entitled to regularisation. The
benefit of regularisation will depend on the nature of
the job and the fact that whether the post falls within
any one of the 86 categories mentioned in the Special
Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service.”
7. The only issue, therefore, which will have to be examined
is whether the appellant herein/writ petitioner would come under anyone
of the 86 categories mentioned in the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic
Service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The learned counsel for the writ appellant forwarded the
Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service, which contains an annexure
containing the category of services which would be classified as coming
under the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service.
9. In the said list, Sl.No.11 is “Watchman”. The petitioner is
actually working as a Watchman in the Cycle Stand at the Collectorate in
Nagercoil. Naturally, he comes under one of the categories as stipulated
as the Tamil Nadu Basic Service. The benefit under G.O.(Ms)No.22,
Personnel and Administrate Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006,
has flowed to him irrespective of number of years which he had
completed as on 01.01.2006.
10. In view of that particular reason, we would set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal and direct
the respondents to pass necessary orders bringing the petitioner service
into regular service and pay the emoluments as are required to pay from
the date on which the petitioner was brought into regular service, namely,
10.05.2009. The said proceedings may be issued and the emoluments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
may be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands allowed and therefore,
the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Petition
stands allowed. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders
bringing the petitioner service into regular service and pay the
emoluments as are required to pay from the date on which the petitioner
was brought into regular service, namely, 10.05.2009. The said
proceedings may be issued and the emoluments may be paid within a
period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No order as to costs.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.P., J.)
17.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary
Revenue Department
St.George Fort,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The The Commissioner of Revenue
Administration
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3.The District Collector
Kanyakumari District
Kanyakumari.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
