Madras High Court

D.Shaju vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 October, 2024

Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

                                                                       W.P.(MD)No.2383 of 2022

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 30.10.2024

                                                   CORAM:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                                           W.P.(MD)No.2383 of 2022
                                       and WMP (MD) No.2058 of 2022


                     D.Shaju                                               : Petitioner
                                                       Vs.
                     1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
                       Environment and Forest Department,
                       Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

                     2.The Primary Chief Conservator of Forest
                       and Chairman,
                       Head of the Forest Department,
                       Panagal Maaligai,
                       Saidapettai Chennai- 600 015.

                     3.The Primary Chief Conservator of Forest
                       and Chairman,
                       Arasu Rubber Corporation,
                      Velachery Main Road, Chennai.

                     4.The Managing Director,
                       Arasu Rubber Corporation, Nagercoil,
                       Kanyakumari District.                               : Respondents

                     PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India for issuance of Writ of Writ of Mandamus, directing the

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

                     1/16
                                                                           W.P.(MD)No.2383 of 2022

                     respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as driver from the
                     date of the petitioner's initial appointment based on the petitioners
                     representation dated 06.10.2021 and also in the light of the G.O.(Ms) No.
                     8 Environment and Forest fR2-II dated 22.01.2021.
                                  For Petitioner   : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
                                  For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
                                                    Government Advocate for R1 to R3
                                                    Mr.A.K.Manickam for R4


                                                    ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to the

respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as driver from the

date of his initial appointment by considering his representation dated

06.10.2021 and also in the light of the G.O.(Ms) No.8 Environment and

Forest (FR2-II), dated 22.01.2021.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as

driver on temporary basis with the office of the Additional Principal

Chief Conservator of Forests (Social Forestry and Extension) as he

possessed all the required qualifications. The petitioner was appointed as

daily wager and the remuneration was given to him on every month by

issuing hand receipt which was signed by the petitioner and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

countersigned by the Additional Primary Chief Conservator of Forest.

3. The petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as a

temporary driver has extended his service to the satisfaction of all his

superiors without any blemish. Further, the mode of payment of his

remuneration was continuing by obtaining receipt from him till today.

Subsequently, his service was transferred to the fourth respondent/Arasu

Rubber Corporation under the same capacity as driver. The service of the

petitioner with the respondents as driver is without any break and his

service would be regularized as per law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the copy of the hand receipt was also issued by the second respondent to

the petitioner for the period from 2010 to 2014 and the copy of the salary

receipt issued by the fourth respondent for the period from 2014 to 2024

was also filed before this Court by way of filing an additional typed set

of papers on 14.10.2024.

5. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the

letter of the Deputy Manager, dated 25.06.2014 in Ref.No.E/2068/2014, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

wherein, it is stated that the petitioner namely D.Shaju, has been engaged

to drive the vehicle in Keeriparai Division for one month period.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further

submit that the fourth respondent has issued tender notification dated

19.08.2024 for outsourcing/supply of manpower to the fourth

respondent/Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited for the period from

October, 2024 to August, 2025. He further submitted that in the

employment registration/Identity Card issued by the Department of

Employment and Training, District Employment and Career Guidance

Centre, Kanyakumari, by which the date of registration of the petitioner

as Driver (LMV) is shown as 19.12.2011 and Driver (HMV) is shown as

18.04.2015.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an order

passed in similar cases in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2650 of

2019 and etc., batch wherein, this Court by order dated 12.06.2019,

directed the respondents therein to regularise the service of the writ

petitioners as Drivers. The relevant portion of the order is extracted

hereunder:-

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

“22.The respondents are directed to

regularize the services of these writ petitioners

as Drivers from the date of initial appointment

of the respective writ petitioners with all

consequential and attendant benefits. The

direction shall be complied with by the first

respondent or any other competent authority

within a period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.”

8. In the aforesaid order dated 12.06.2019, the fourth

respondent/Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited is one of the respondents

in W.P.No.2665 of 2019. Against the said order, the Government had

preferred an appeal in W.A.No.391 of 2020 and etc., batch, in which a

Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 30.03.2020

confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.06.2019 in

W.P.Nos.2650 of 2019 and etc., batch. The relevant portion of the

judgment is extracted and the same reads as follows:-

“7. We have considered the submissions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

raised and we find no reason to differ from the

view taken by the Division Bench while

confirming the judgment of the learned Single

Judge, issuing directions for regularization.

But, insofar as the date from which such

regularization will be given effect to being sub-

judice before the Apex Court, we direct that the

respondents/petitioners shall be regularized

and so far as the date of regularization is

concerned, the same will be governed by the

outcome of the judgment of the Apex Court. 8.

The learned Additional Advocate General, on

instructions, states that the

respondents/petitioners will be regularized and

the regularization orders will be issued within

four weeks from the date of production of a

copy of this order. We record this and direct

accordingly.”

9. The appointment of the petitioner was as early as in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

March 2010, even after the lapse of several years his service was not

regularized and therefore, he preferred representation on various dates

and the same was received by the respondents. However, the said

representations were not considered even after considering the grievance

of the similarly placed persons. In this regard, several writ petitions were

filed before this Court and those writ petitions were allowed. As against

which, the Government preferred Writ Appeals and the same was also

dismissed by this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the question of regularization went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

the same was decided in favour of the writ petitioners/drivers. However,

insofar as the date from which the regularisation will be given effect is

pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that

considering all the surrounding circumstances, the Government have

issued G.O.(Ms) No.8, Environment and Forest (FR2-II), dated

22.01.2021 and thereby, the Government has given relaxation as

contemplated under the Government Servants (Conditions of Service

Act, 2016) and also under the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Forest

Subordinate Service Special Rules regarding age and the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Government Order was also given effect. However, the case of the

petitioner was not considered by the respondent till date though similarly

placed persons got regularization of their appointment. Hence, the

petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

11. A counter-affidavit was filed by the fourth

respondent/Arasu Rubber Corporation. The learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that since the Forest

Department and Arasu Rubber Corporation are different entities and so th

working in Arasu Rubber Corporation cannot be considered as

continuation with that of the Forest Department. In the fourth respondent

Corporation, the writ petitioner is engaged as casual worker and has been

paid daily wages for the days he had worked temporarily as per day to

day requirements and the writ petitioner was never selected in terms of

the relevant recruitment rules. He would further submitted that as per the

salary for the month of September 2024, the petitioner was referred as

casual labourer only and not as driver.

12. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the

G.O.(Ms) No.8 Environment and Forest (FR2-II) dated 22.01.2021, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

cannot be directly applicable to the petitioner and it is based on the

veracity of individual cases. He also relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors., v.

Umadevi reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806.

13. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth

respondent further submitted that as per the minutes of the review

meeting in respect of the public sector undertakings held on 15.05.2024,

it has been decided to merge Arasu Rubber Corporation with Tamil Nadu

Tea Plantation Corporation Limited and Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation

Corporation Limited.

14. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

fourth respondent furnished the category-wise officers and staff

details in Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil as on

31.08.2024 in Annexure-1, wherein, it has been stated that there is

one post of driver vacant and one post of Line Man/Wireman and the

said details were furnished duly by the Managing Director on

24.10.2024.

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

15. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

16. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner was working as

a temporary driver in the office of the first and second respondents from

March 2010, till he jointed the fourth respondent/Arasu Rubber

Corporation Limited in the year 2014. Thereafter, he is working

continuously till date with the fourth respondent. The contention of the

fourth respondent is that the regularisation of the service of the petitioner

as a driver cannot be considered for the reason that the fourth respondent

Corporation is going to be merged with Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation

Corporation Limited and Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation

Limited. Though, there is one vacancy available to the post of Driver, the

petitioner cannot be accommodated for the said reason. In the monthly

pay slip for the month of September 2024, it is mentioned as against the

name of the petitioner as casual worker only and not as Driver.

17. According to the fourth respondent Corporation, the

petitioner was not only discharging the duty of Driver but working in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

other capacity also. According to the tender notification issued by the

fourth respondent Corporation dated 19.08.2024, the supply of

manpower is for the period from October, 2024 to August, 2025. The

petitioner is having qualification to the post of Driver and he has also

registered in the District Employment and Career Guidance Centre,

Kanyakumari, as early as Driver (LMV) on 19.12.2011 and Driver

(HMV) on 18.04.2015.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance

on the order passed by this Court dated 12.06.2019 in W.P.Nos.2650

of 2019 and etc., batch, wherein this Court had directed the

respondents to regularise the temporary services of the writ

petitioners, in which the fourth respondent Corporation is also one of

the respondents therein. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the

Government in W.A.No.391 of 2020 and etc., batch, and the same

was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment

dated 30.03.2020 and confirmed the order passed by the learned

Single Judge on 12.06.2019 in W.P.Nos.2650 of 2019 and etc., batch.

19. According to the fourth respondent Corporation, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

there is one vacancy to the post of Driver and one vacancy to the post

of Line Man/Wireman as on 31.08.2024. This Court is of the view

that there is no impediment for the fourth respondent Corporation to

regularise the service of the petitioner as Driver since he has

completed ten years of service in the fourth respondent Corporation.

As per the tender notification dated 19.08.2024, the supply of

manpower is for the period from October, 2024 to August, 2025 and

even assuming the merger of the fourth respondent/Arasu Rubber

Corporation Limited with Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation

Limited and Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Limited, the

services of the petitioner shall be utilized as a Driver. If the fourth

respondent Corporation is not in a position to regularise the services

of the petitioner as a Driver, he shall be accommodated and

regularised in the post of Line Man/Wireman since the petitioner has

got the required qualification i.e., 'B' License Card issued by the

Secretary, Electrical Licensing Board in Wireman Competency

Certificate No.B 136483.

20. Furthermore, the petitioner has also enclosed his

experience certificates dated 21.12.2005 and 06.02.2008 wherein, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

has been stated that he has been worked as Electrician. Hence, the

petitioner is eligible not only for the post of Driver which he is

working for the last 14 years but also for the post of Line

Man/Wireman since he has acquired requisite qualification and it is

evident from 'B' License issued by the Secretary, Electrical Licensing

Board in Wireman Competency Certificate No.B 136483.

21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that

the petitioner is eligible either for regularisation of his service as

Driver from the date of his initial appointment or to be

accommodated in the post of Line man/Wireman and to regularise

his service.

22. In view of the above factual matrix, this Court is

inclined to pass the following directions:-

(i) The fourth respondent is directed to

regularize the service of the petitioner as

Driver from the date of his initial

appointment by considering his

representation dated 06.10.2021 and also in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the light of the G.O.(Ms) No.8, Environment

and Forest (FR2-II), dated 22.01.2021;