High Court · 2025

W.P.No.13857 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24-03-2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE N.MALAW.P.No.13857 of 2021G.Paramasivam ... Petitioner vs1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principle Secretary to Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The Commissioner/Director of Adi Dravidarand Tribal Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai-600 009.3. The District and Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.4. The Special Tahsilar (ADW), Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.5. The Headmaster, Government Nandanar Boys Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District .... Respondents 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to first respondent relating to the order in Letter No.2627/ADW.4(2)/2014-1 dated 13.08.2015, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Sanitary Worker from the date of his initial appointment by granting necessary relaxation with regular time scale of pay and consequential monetary benefits.For petitioner:Mr.B.SundarapandiyanFor respondents:Mr.L.S.M.Hasan FazilAGP ORDERThe petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to first respondent, relating to the order in Letter No.2627/ADW.4(2)/2014-1 dated 13.08.2015, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Sanitary Worker from the date of his initial appointment by granting necessary relaxation with regular time scale of pay and consequential monetary benefits.2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 20212. The petitioner was initially appointed as Sanitary Worker in Government Nandanar Boys Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram, on daily wage basis on 10.03.1993 and he joined duty on 15.03.1993. In response to the letter dated 07.11.2008 of the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai and the letter dated 04.01.2009 of District ADW Officer, Cuddalore, on 23.01.2009, the Head Master of the School sent a report stating that the petitioner completed 10 years of service on 01.01.2006, and as no charges were pending against him, he was eligible to be regularised in service with regular time scale of pay.3. In view of the above, The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore in his letter dated 03.02.2009, submitted a report to the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chennai, recommending the proposal of the Headmaster. The Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chennai, forwarded the same to the Government with a request to grant relaxation of the Rule relating to the requirement of employment through Employment Exchange in favour of the petitioner and to create a post of Sanitary Worker in the above School with effect from 01.01.2006, so as to regularise the petitioner's service from 01.01.2006. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 20214. On 25.11.2010 the Headmaster of the School replied to the letter of Commissioner of ADW, Chennai dated 15.10.2020, stating that two posts of sanitary workers sanctioned for Government Nandanar Boys Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram and in the Primary School for Boys were vacant. Thereafter there were further communications by the respondents seeking further details and the same were submitted.5. Despite the submission of the details and after a lapse of three years, the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore rejected the request of the Headmaster of the School, vide impugned letter dated 09.12.2015, stating that as the petitioner was not appointed through the Employment Exchange, he was not eligible for appointment. A copy of the order was communicated to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.6. The respondents filed counter stating inter-alia that the impugned order ought not to be interfered with as the petitioner was not employed through Employment Exchange and further the petitioner was not a daily 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021wage worker but a contract worker. The respondents stated that in G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006, the Government issued directions to regularise the daily wage workers who completed 10 years of service and as the petitioner was not engaged as daily wage worker but was engaged only as contingent worker drawing Rs.500/-per month from the contingent funds, he was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. Hence his claim for regularisation was rightly rejected. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 he was entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, which provides for regularisation of services on relaxation of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by the impugned order the petitioner's service of 22 years, was sought to be over ruled and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained.8. Learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the counter filed by the respondents, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, inasmuch as he was employed as a 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021contingent worker, on a consolidated wage of Rs.500/-per month. Learned counsel further submits that G.O.Ms.22 applied only to full time employees and as the petitioner was not a full time employee, the said G.O did not apply to him.9. I heard the submissions of both counsels and perused the materials available on record.10. The petitioner admittedly completed 22 years of service. G.O.Ms.No.22 provides for grant of relaxation by the Government for candidates not sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Though the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer and the Headmaster of the School, recommended for the petitioner's regularisation by annexing the requisite documents, the Government rejected the same only on the ground that the petitioner was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. 11. The impugned order dated 13.08.2015 reads as follows:-“ 2. flYhh; khtl;lk;. Rpjk;guk; muR ee;jdhh; Mjpjpuhtplh; ey Mz;fs; nky;epiyg; gs;sp kw;Wk; tpLjpapy fle;j 22 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021Mz;LfSf;F nky; KG neu Jg;g[ut[g; gzpahsuhfg; gzpg[hpa[k; jpU/ gukrptk; vd;gth; ntiytha;g;gfk; K:yk; epakdk; bra;ag;glhjjhy; tpjpfspd;go jdpaUf;F fhyKiw Cjpak; tH';f ,ayhJ/ vdnt. ghh;it (3),y; fhdqk; flYhh; khtl;l Ml;rpah; bray;Kiwfspd;go. jpdf;Typ tH';f tHptif ,Ug;gpd; mjd;go Ma;t[ bra;a[khW j';fisf; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;”/12. From a reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the respondents admitted that the petitioner was a full time employee and that he had put in 22 years of service. The only ground for rejecting the petitioner's request for regularisation was that the petitioner was not appointed through Employment Exchange. It is only in counter that the respondents state that the petitioner was a contingent worker and was paid Rs.500/-per month from the contingent funds. 13. The respondents cannot improve their case in the counter. When in the impugned order nothing is stated about the status of the petitioner as a contingent worker, the stand taken in the counter cannot be countenanced, since the validity of the impugned order should be tested on the reasons stated 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021therein and cannot be improved by raising additional grounds in the counter affidavit. Reference in this regard can be usefully made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (1978 AIR 851). Therefore, when the petitioner admittedly put in 22 years of service as full time employee, he is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, which also provides for grant of relaxation for an employee not sponsored by Employment Exchange. 14. The impugned order reflects total non-application of mind, since the respondent failed to note that the G.O itself provides for relaxation of Rules relating to appointments made otherwise than through Employment Exchange. When the request was for relaxation as well, the respondents, instead of granting the request for relaxation, rejected the request for regularisatioin on the basis that the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 15. Further, the respondents have extracted work from the petitioner for the past 22 years. In the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in 2024 SCC Online 3826 (Shripal and another vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021“17. ......While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.”16. I therefore find that the impugned order is unsustainable and hence, it is set aside.17. It is to be noted here that while rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization, the Government directed the authorities to find out if the petitioner could be accommodated on daily wage basis. Therefore, it is clear that the services of the petitioner were very much needed. The Headmaster of the School in his letter dated 09.08.2013, clearly stated that there was one vacant post of sanitary worker, the respondents failed to consider the same. Therefore, which ever way one looks, the impugned order cannot be sustained.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 202118. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Sanitary Worker by relaxing the Rule regarding sponsorship through Employment Exchange, with all monetary benefits within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.19. Before concluding, I must note that the counter affidavit appears to have been filed without a proper review of the documents and records relevant to this case. The impugned order itself acknowledges that the petitioner is a full time employee with 22 years of service. Yet it remains unclear how the respondents arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is merely a contingent worker allegedly receiving Rs.500/- per month from the contingent fund. The callousness exhibited in filing the counter affidavit in these 226 proceedings cannot be lightly disregarded. Accordingly, I impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent, with liberty to recover the same from the officer responsible for the filing of counter affidavit. It is expected that, in future, the respondent will exercise greater vigilance in filing of the counter affidavit.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 202120. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the District Adidravidar Prime Welfare Officer, O/o DAD & TWO, Cuddalore to the petitioner. 24-03-2025srIndex:yes/nowebsite:yes/noTo1. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 006.3. The Joint Director of School Education, DPI Complex, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 006.4. The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.5. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.6. The District Educational Officer, Vriddhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021 N.MALA, J.sr W.P.No.13857 of 202124.03.202512/12

W.P.No.13857 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24-03-2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE N.MALAW.P.No.13857 of 2021G.Paramasivam ... Petitioner vs1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principle Secretary to Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The Commissioner/Director of Adi Dravidarand Tribal Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai-600 009.3. The District and Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.4. The Special Tahsilar (ADW), Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.5. The Headmaster, Government Nandanar Boys Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District .... Respondents 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to first respondent relating to the order in Letter No.2627/ADW.4(2)/2014-1 dated 13.08.2015, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Sanitary Worker from the date of his initial appointment by granting necessary relaxation with regular time scale of pay and consequential monetary benefits.For petitioner:Mr.B.SundarapandiyanFor respondents:Mr.L.S.M.Hasan FazilAGP ORDERThe petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to first respondent, relating to the order in Letter No.2627/ADW.4(2)/2014-1 dated 13.08.2015, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Sanitary Worker from the date of his initial appointment by granting necessary relaxation with regular time scale of pay and consequential monetary benefits.2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 20212. The petitioner was initially appointed as Sanitary Worker in Government Nandanar Boys Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram, on daily wage basis on 10.03.1993 and he joined duty on 15.03.1993. In response to the letter dated 07.11.2008 of the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chennai and the letter dated 04.01.2009 of District ADW Officer, Cuddalore, on 23.01.2009, the Head Master of the School sent a report stating that the petitioner completed 10 years of service on 01.01.2006, and as no charges were pending against him, he was eligible to be regularised in service with regular time scale of pay.3. In view of the above, The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore in his letter dated 03.02.2009, submitted a report to the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chennai, recommending the proposal of the Headmaster. The Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chennai, forwarded the same to the Government with a request to grant relaxation of the Rule relating to the requirement of employment through Employment Exchange in favour of the petitioner and to create a post of Sanitary Worker in the above School with effect from 01.01.2006, so as to regularise the petitioner's service from 01.01.2006. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 20214. On 25.11.2010 the Headmaster of the School replied to the letter of Commissioner of ADW, Chennai dated 15.10.2020, stating that two posts of sanitary workers sanctioned for Government Nandanar Boys Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram and in the Primary School for Boys were vacant. Thereafter there were further communications by the respondents seeking further details and the same were submitted.5. Despite the submission of the details and after a lapse of three years, the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore rejected the request of the Headmaster of the School, vide impugned letter dated 09.12.2015, stating that as the petitioner was not appointed through the Employment Exchange, he was not eligible for appointment. A copy of the order was communicated to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.6. The respondents filed counter stating inter-alia that the impugned order ought not to be interfered with as the petitioner was not employed through Employment Exchange and further the petitioner was not a daily 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021wage worker but a contract worker. The respondents stated that in G.O.Ms.No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006, the Government issued directions to regularise the daily wage workers who completed 10 years of service and as the petitioner was not engaged as daily wage worker but was engaged only as contingent worker drawing Rs.500/-per month from the contingent funds, he was not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. Hence his claim for regularisation was rightly rejected. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 he was entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, which provides for regularisation of services on relaxation of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by the impugned order the petitioner's service of 22 years, was sought to be over ruled and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained.8. Learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the counter filed by the respondents, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, inasmuch as he was employed as a 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021contingent worker, on a consolidated wage of Rs.500/-per month. Learned counsel further submits that G.O.Ms.22 applied only to full time employees and as the petitioner was not a full time employee, the said G.O did not apply to him.9. I heard the submissions of both counsels and perused the materials available on record.10. The petitioner admittedly completed 22 years of service. G.O.Ms.No.22 provides for grant of relaxation by the Government for candidates not sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Though the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer and the Headmaster of the School, recommended for the petitioner's regularisation by annexing the requisite documents, the Government rejected the same only on the ground that the petitioner was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. 11. The impugned order dated 13.08.2015 reads as follows:-“ 2. flYhh; khtl;lk;. Rpjk;guk; muR ee;jdhh; Mjpjpuhtplh; ey Mz;fs; nky;epiyg; gs;sp kw;Wk; tpLjpapy fle;j 22 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021Mz;LfSf;F nky; KG neu Jg;g[ut[g; gzpahsuhfg; gzpg[hpa[k; jpU/ gukrptk; vd;gth; ntiytha;g;gfk; K:yk; epakdk; bra;ag;glhjjhy; tpjpfspd;go jdpaUf;F fhyKiw Cjpak; tH';f ,ayhJ/ vdnt. ghh;it (3),y; fhdqk; flYhh; khtl;l Ml;rpah; bray;Kiwfspd;go. jpdf;Typ tH';f tHptif ,Ug;gpd; mjd;go Ma;t[ bra;a[khW j';fisf; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;”/12. From a reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the respondents admitted that the petitioner was a full time employee and that he had put in 22 years of service. The only ground for rejecting the petitioner's request for regularisation was that the petitioner was not appointed through Employment Exchange. It is only in counter that the respondents state that the petitioner was a contingent worker and was paid Rs.500/-per month from the contingent funds. 13. The respondents cannot improve their case in the counter. When in the impugned order nothing is stated about the status of the petitioner as a contingent worker, the stand taken in the counter cannot be countenanced, since the validity of the impugned order should be tested on the reasons stated 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021therein and cannot be improved by raising additional grounds in the counter affidavit. Reference in this regard can be usefully made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (1978 AIR 851). Therefore, when the petitioner admittedly put in 22 years of service as full time employee, he is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, which also provides for grant of relaxation for an employee not sponsored by Employment Exchange. 14. The impugned order reflects total non-application of mind, since the respondent failed to note that the G.O itself provides for relaxation of Rules relating to appointments made otherwise than through Employment Exchange. When the request was for relaxation as well, the respondents, instead of granting the request for relaxation, rejected the request for regularisatioin on the basis that the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 15. Further, the respondents have extracted work from the petitioner for the past 22 years. In the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in 2024 SCC Online 3826 (Shripal and another vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021“17. ......While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.”16. I therefore find that the impugned order is unsustainable and hence, it is set aside.17. It is to be noted here that while rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization, the Government directed the authorities to find out if the petitioner could be accommodated on daily wage basis. Therefore, it is clear that the services of the petitioner were very much needed. The Headmaster of the School in his letter dated 09.08.2013, clearly stated that there was one vacant post of sanitary worker, the respondents failed to consider the same. Therefore, which ever way one looks, the impugned order cannot be sustained.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 202118. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Sanitary Worker by relaxing the Rule regarding sponsorship through Employment Exchange, with all monetary benefits within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.19. Before concluding, I must note that the counter affidavit appears to have been filed without a proper review of the documents and records relevant to this case. The impugned order itself acknowledges that the petitioner is a full time employee with 22 years of service. Yet it remains unclear how the respondents arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is merely a contingent worker allegedly receiving Rs.500/- per month from the contingent fund. The callousness exhibited in filing the counter affidavit in these 226 proceedings cannot be lightly disregarded. Accordingly, I impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent, with liberty to recover the same from the officer responsible for the filing of counter affidavit. It is expected that, in future, the respondent will exercise greater vigilance in filing of the counter affidavit.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 202120. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the District Adidravidar Prime Welfare Officer, O/o DAD & TWO, Cuddalore to the petitioner. 24-03-2025srIndex:yes/nowebsite:yes/noTo1. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director of School Education, DPI Complex, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 006.3. The Joint Director of School Education, DPI Complex, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 006.4. The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.5. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.6. The District Educational Officer, Vriddhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13857 of 2021 N.MALA, J.sr W.P.No.13857 of 202124.03.202512/12