✦ High Court of India · 19 Mar 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 19 Mar 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

19 Mar 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

1,914 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P.No.6227 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 19.03.2025Coram:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALAW.P.No.6227 of 20221.A.Elanchezhyan2.S.Ramesh3.S.Senthilkumar4.G.Suresh5.K.Subramani6.V.Jones Manova7.K.R.Ganesan8.D.Palani9.S.Ravichandran10.K.Arumugam11.M.Rajendran... PetitionersVs. 1. The Commissioner,Greater Chennai City Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Superintending Engineer,Mechanical Engineering Department, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Chennai.3.Joint Director,Local Fund Audit, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Chennai 600 003.... Respondents Page No. 1 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings E.Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.M-6/2099/2021 dated 16.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently issue a direction directing the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioners ad Drivers w.e.f. 13.12.1995 and grant increments and other service benefits based on the Resolution No.2984/95 dated 13.12.1995 of the Greater Chennai Corporation, which was approved/ratified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplied) Department dated 24.04.1998 together with all consequential service and monetary benefits, within a time-frame as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.For Petitioners :Mr.G.Bala and Daisy For Respondents : Mr.G.T.Subramanian----- ORDER Writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.02.2022, of the 2nd respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner's to regularise their services from 13.12.1995. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed as temporary drivers through district employment exchange on 02.11.1993. The respondent corporation passed a resolution for absorbing the existing 525 drivers in two phases. The said Page No. 2 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022resolution of the corporation was approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department, dated 24.04.1998. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by order dated 29.05.1998, regularised the services of the writ petitioners with effect from 29.05.1998. The petitioners therefore submitted representations to regularise their services from the date of resolution of the corporation dated 13.12.1995. The said request of the petitioners was not acceded to and therefore, the petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.No.15056, 18032 and 21441 of 2021, for regularisation of their services with effect from 13.12.1995. In the said writ petitions, this court vide orders dated 27.07.2021, 31.08.2021 and 05.10.2021, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners taking into consideration the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent, on merits and in accordance with law. According to the petitioners, even without applying his mind to the facts and the issue before him, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order negating the petitioners request. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.3. The respondents apart from reiterating the factual aspects of the case submitted that, the petitioners services were regularised as per the proceedings of Page No. 3 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.05.1998, with monetary benefits from the date of confirmation as per the council's resolution No.141 of 1998, dated 19.05.1998. The respondents submitted that the regularisation and monetary benefits claimed by the petitioners from 13.12.1995, in the light of the aforesaid fact could not be accepted. The respondents further relied on the UAC (Mechanical) opinion dated 30.09.2019, stating that the 255 drivers who were absorbed from their confirmation date were not entitled for re-fixation. The UAC (Mechanical) had made it very clear that re-fixation of the date of joining was not possible, as the same attained finality and was not subjected to any appeal or revision. The respondents therefore stated that the petitioners lost their right to re-agitate the issue and therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent passed an order on 04.12.2018, re-fixing the date of regularisation for six similarly placed drivers from 03.06.1998 and 01.06.1998 to 13.12.1995, and therefore as the original proposal covered all 525 drivers with effect from 13.12.1995, the petitioners were also entitled for regularisation with effect from 13.12.1995. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents had accepted the proposal Page No. 4 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022for regularisation of services of the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that similar proposal for regularisation of the services of Assistant Engineers was also accepted and implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.177 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department, dated 16.03.2015. The learned counsel therefore submitted that being the last grade Government servants, the respondents could not discriminate and deprive the petitioners of their legitimate right. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, for negating the request of the petitioners was untenable, in as much as, the respondents failed to note that all the petitioners were employed through district employment exchange and in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents failed to note that all the petitioners were brought into regular time scale of pay applicable to the post of drivers, as early as on 29.08.1994 and therefore, the reasons stated in the impugned order that the date of regularisation cannot be re-fixed was unsustainable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit.Page No. 5 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 20226. I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.7. The facts are undisputed and therefore they are not traversed, so as to avoid repetition. The crux of the matter is whether the petitioners claim for regularisation from 13.12.1995, as per the resolution of the Special Officer of the Chennai Corporation dated 13.12.1995, as confirmed by G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department, dated 24.04.1998, is justified or not.8. The petitioners were regularised as a permanent drivers by order dated 29.05.1998, of the 2nd respondent and their pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.3200-85-4900, in accordance with the pay commission revision. The petitioners relying on the resolution of the Special Officer of the Chennai Corporation in resolution No.2984 dated 13.12.1995, the G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department, dated 24.04.1998, and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 04.12.2018, claimed regularisation of Page No. 6 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022their services and payment of monetary benefits from 13.12.1995. The said request was rejected by the impugned order dated 16.02.2022. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the request of the petitioners was rejected, solely on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (2006(4) SCC 1) and G.O.Ms.No.131, of the Government dated 28.11.2020. It appears that the respondents in the impugned order failed to note that the petitioners were not seeking regularisation, but were only seeking re-fixation of the date of regularisation to 13.12.1995, instead of from 29.05.1998. The basis of the petitioner's claim is the resolution passed by the corporation on 13.12.1995 and the G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department, dated 24.04.1998. Under the said G.O., resolution was passed by the respondents creating 525 additional post of drivers and for absorption of the temporary drivers appointed during 1991 to 1993. In the proposal, it was stated that as the temporary drivers were already paid regular time scale of pay, there would not be any financial burden on the Government by absorbing them. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department, dated 24.04.1998, accepted the proposal of the respondent. The said G.O reads as Page No. 7 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022follows:@brd;id khefuhl;rp Mizahsh; nkny gof;fg;gl;Ls;s foj';fspy; mDg;gpa[s;s braw;Fwpg;gpid Vw;W. rpwg;g[ mjpfhhp kd;wk; jPh;khdk; vz;/2984-95 ehs; 13/12/95-d;go brd;id khefuhl;rp ,ae;jputpay; Jiwf;bfd TLjyhf 525 Xl;Leh; gzpapl';fs; U:gha;/975?25?1150?30?1660 vd;w fhyKiw rk;gs tpfpjj;jpy; njhw;Wtpj;Js;sjw;F gpd;ndw;g[ tH';fp muR MizapLfpwJ/2) ,t;thiz epjpj;Jiwapy; mYty; rhh;gw;w Fwpg;g[ vz;/17096-epjp (efuhl;rp epw;thfk; kw;Wk; FoePh; tH';fy;-98?1 ehs; 31/3/98 rhd;WjnyhL btspaplg;gLfpwJ@From the above Government Order, it is very clear that the Government accepted the proposal dated 13.12.1995, with retrospective effect. The 3rd respondent in its communication to the 2nd respondent dated 18.09.2018, recommended the case of the petitioners for regularisation with effect from 1995, based on the said G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 24.04.1998. Even this court in its order dated 27.07.2021 in W.P.No.15056 of 2021, directed the respondents 1 and 2 herein, to consider the above proposal of the 3rd respondent, and pass order within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon a bare reading of the impugned order, it is clear that no reasons are assigned for rejecting the Page No. 8 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022recommendations of the 3rd respondent dated 18.09.2018. It has already been noted that the impugned order merely cites and relies on Supreme Court judgment in Uma devi's case and G.O.Ms.No.131, for rejecting the petitioners request. In my view, the impugned order reflects total non application of mind by the 2nd respondent, as the 2nd respondent failed to note that the petitioners were not seeking regularisation, but were seeking for re-fixing the date of regularisation on the basis of the resolution of the 1st respondent dated 13.12.1995, as approved by G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplies) Department. In my further view, when the Government decided as early as on 24.04.1998, to grant regularisation retrospectively from the date of the resolution of the 1st respondent dated 13.12.1995, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner's representation favourably. In my view, therefore the impugned order dated 16.02.2022, cannot be sustained.9. It is further relevant to note here that the petitioners even before their regularisation on 29.05.1998, were working as temporary drivers from 1993, by drawing the regular time scale of pay with effect from 18.08.1994, as per the Page No. 9 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022orders of the 2nd respondent dated 29.08.1994. Therefore, the Government in its wisdom vide G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 24.04.1998, gave retrospective approval to the resolution dated 13.12.1995 of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent without considering the aforesaid facts and without applying his mind to the resolution of the Special Officer of the Corporation dated 13.12.1995, the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 24.04.1998, and the recommendation of the 3rd respondent dated 18.09.2018, rejected the petitioners representation by citing irrelevant and untenable reasons, exhibiting total non application of mind to the facts of the case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the writ petition and hence the impugned order dated 16.02.2022, is set aside. 10. In view of the fact that the petitioners have been litigating the issue for a long time, I am of the opinion that, a positive direction needs to be issued to the 2nd respondent to re-fix the date of regularisation of the petitioners from 13.12.1995, and grant increments and other service benefits to the petitioners, as per the resolution No.2984/95 dated 13.12.1995 and G.O.Ms.No.67 (Municipal Administration and Water Supplied) Department, dated 24.04.1998, together with all consequential and monetary benefits within a period of twelve (12) weeks, from Page No. 10 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is/are closed.19.03.2025 Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NoSpeaking order:Yes/Nomsm/dsnN.MALA,J. msm/dsnTo1. The Commissioner,Greater Chennai City Corporation, Page No. 11 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6227 of 2022Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Superintending Engineer,Mechanical Engineering Department, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Chennai.3.Joint Director,Local Fund Audit, Greater Chennai City Corporation, Chennai 600 003.W.P.No.6227 of 2022 19.03.2025Page No. 12 / 12

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India