Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Balamurugan on 9 September, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.840 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.840 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)Nos.6986 and 8719 of 2022
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by it's Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Special Secretary cum Project Director,
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare,
Tamil Nadu Health System Project,
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
3. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
4. The Government Rajaji Hospital,
Represented by its Dean,
Madurai, Madurai District. ... Appellants
vs.
1. K.Balamurugan
2. P.Arivagam
3. K.Sathis
4. P.Stalin
5. M.Nagarajan
6. R.Sagathevan
7. Muthumari
8. P.Balasubramani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
W.A(MD)No.840 of 2024
9. S.Karthik
10. S.Ranjithkumar
11. P.Rajkumar
12. M.Palanivel
13. Ahamed Sabik
14. S.K.Pandian
15. Rabisa Begam
16. Gowri Muthukrishnan
17. S.Chitra
18. P.Arun
19. M.Pandi
20. K.Dhamatharan
21. K.P.Malarveli
22. K.Arumugam
23. M.Samaya Sanjivi
24. G.Gurusamy
25. B.Marimuthu
26. K.Velmurugan
27. S.Velmurugan
28. N.Senthilkumar
29. S.Boss
30. P.Kalaiappan
31. V.Vengaiyan
32. Chandra Sekaran
33. P.Thirupathi Mahalingam
34. M.Chinnasamy
35. S.A.M.Naina Mohammed
36. S.Abdulla Lathip
37. K.Krishnaveni
38. S.Ameer Bagam
39. M.Latha
40. M.Panchu
41. A.S.Arumugam
42. S.Nagajothi
43. V.M.Kumaran ... Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the
order made in W.P(MD)No.18665 of 2013 dated 02.12.2016.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 6
W.A(MD)No.840 of 2024
Additional Advocate General assisted
by Mr.SRA.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For R1 to R11, 14 to 25, 27,
28,30 to 34,37 to 39, 41 & 42 : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For R13, R36, R40 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The appeal is against the order made in W.P(MD)No.18665 of
2013, quashing the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2013, in and by which,
the Government decided to outsource housekeeping and security services in
Medical College Hospitals. It was the contention of the petitioners before the
Writ Court that they have been serving as Sanitary Workers in Government
Hospitals for several years and if the Government is allowed to resort to
outsourcing, they will be rendered jobless. The Writ Court quashed the
Government Order.
2. We have heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr.SRA.Ramachandran, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 11, 14 to 25, 27, 28, 30 to 34, 37 to
39, 41 & 42.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Recently, the question as to whether the Government would be
entitled to make temporary appointments was considered by a Full Bench of
this Court in M.Sivappa vs. The State of Tamilnadu and four others
[W.P.No.23823 of 2023, dated 26.02.2024], to which, one of us
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) was a party. After considering the scope of
G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 27.06.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, the Full
Bench had held that if the appointment is made to any one of the 86 categories
of posts enumerated in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service, immaterial of the fact
that whether the appointment is part time or full time, the employees would be
entitled to regularisation. It is not in dispute that the post in which the writ
petitioners are working is one of the posts found in the Tamil Nadu Basic
Service and therefore, recruitment of temporary employees in such posts itself
will be in violation of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Since the writ
petitioners have been appointed to full time posts which are governed by the
Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, the authorities cannot resort to outsourcing of
those posts with a view to ease out the writ petitioners. We, therefore, find no
merit in the appeal.
4. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in
accordance with the applicable Government Orders and bring them under time
scale of pay at the earliest if they are found otherwise eligible by relaxing
necessary rules. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.)
09.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Special Secretary cum Project Director,
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare,
Tamil Nadu Health System Project,
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
3. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
4. The Government Rajaji Hospital,
Represented by its Dean,
Madurai, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 09.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
