P.K.Mani v. The Director of Rural Development Department of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai -152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.08.2009CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.NO.8562 OF 2007P.K.Mani...Petitioner Vs.1. The Director of Rural Development Department of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai -152. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannmalai.3. The Commissioner, Pernamallur Panchayat Union, Pernamallur Thiruvannamalai District.4. The State of Tamilnadu rep.by its Secretary to Government Rural Development of Panchayat Fort St.George, Chennai - 9...Respondents (R-4 Impleaded as per order dated 19.08.2009 in M.P.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.8562 of 2007)PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.392 of 2002,to call for the records relating to the order passed by the secondrespondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.gm2.16666/2001 dated 22.01.2002and quash the same.For Petitioner:Mr.Venkatesh, for Mr.Ajmal KhanFor Respondents:Mrs.C.K.Vishnu PriyaAdditional Government Pleader---O R D E RThe Original Application in O.A.No.392 of 2002 before theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "theTribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.8562 of 2007 before thisCourt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Heard Mr.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya, learned Additional Government Pleader forthe respondents.3. The petitioner was appointed as a Gang Coolie inPernamallur Panchayat Union by an order dated 04.10.1974 by thePanchayat Union Commissioner, Pernamallur, the third respondentherein. The petitioner is in possession of driving license fordriving Light Motor Vehicles and passed VIII standard. The regulardriver of the Panchayat Union i.e., Mr.B.R.Raja Kanni, died on10.04.1994 and thereafter, the petitioner was utilised for drivingthe Light Motor Vehicles in the Panchayat Union. The petitioner is aregular Gang Coolie and he was in receipt of Rs.750-12-870-14-940scale of pay. The Commissioner for the Panchayat Union, the thirdrespondent herein, wrote a letter in e.f.m1.2563/95 dated 24.08.1995to the District Collector of Thiruvannmalai, the second respondentherein, requesting to promote the petitioner as Jeep Driver, since hewas driving the Jeep from 10.04.1994 i.e., from the death of regularJeep Driver and since, he possessed the prescribed qualification tohold the post of Driver. The Commissioner of Panchyat Union, thethird respondent herein, also stated that Resolution No.35, dated24.08.1995 was passed by the Panchayat Union for promoting thepetitioner as Jeep Driver from Gang Coolie.4. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer issuedproceedings in Na.Ka.c.No.3157/96 dated 02.06.1996, directing thethird respondent to relieve the petitioner from the Panchayat Union,so as to drive the Jeep for him, since the post of Driver was vacantin his office and he was not able to go to camps in the absence of adriver. Based on the said order, the petitioner was sent to theoffice of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, to drive jeep forhim.5. The second respondent, wrote a letter dated 15.10.1998 tothe first respondent, seeking clarification in the matter ofappointing the petitioner as Driver on regular basis. In the saidletter, the second respondent states that the petitioner worked as aJeep Driver for the Revenue Divisional Officer and also for theTahsildar, Vandavasi, during the election period. It is also statedthat for the past two years, the petitioner was working as driver in'ARIVOLI IYAKKAM'. In the mean time, the second respondent passed anorder dated 10.05.1999, in proceeding Na.Ka.B.C. 9461/99,permitting the third respondent Commissioner to promote thepetitioner as driver in the scale of Rs.3200-85-4900. Accordingly,the third respondent passed an order dated 05.08.1999, appointingthe petitioner as driver in Rs.3200-85-4900 scale.6. In these circumstances, the second respondent passed theimpugned order dated 22.01.2002, reverting the petitioner from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ post of Jeep Driver to Gang Coolie. It is stated therein that thefirst respondent refused to approve the appointment of the petitioneras a Jeep Driver from Gang Coolie vide his order dated 07.12.2001.The impugned order is solely based on the said order 07.12.2001 ofthe first respondent.7. The petitioner filed O.A.No.392 of 2002 before theTribunal and obtained interim order against reversion. The interimorder is still in force. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sincethe petitioner has been serving as Jeep Driver from 10.04.1994 i.e.,for the past 15 years, the first respondent was not justified inrefusing to get necessary orders from the Government for appointinghim as a Jeep Driver. When it is admitted that the services of thepetitioner was utilised by the Panchayat Union as regular driver andby the Revenue Divisional Officer when there was no driver in hisoffice and also in 'ARIVOLI IYAKKAM', the Government is bound to passnecessary orders permitting him to continue as driver from the year1994.9. On the other hand, the learned Additional GovernmentPleader submits that the order of the first resopondent dated07.12.2001, based on which the impugned order was passed, is inconformity with G.O.Ms.No.262, Rural Development Department, dated15.12.1998. The learned counsel submits that as per theG.O.Ms.No.262, the tractor drivers, road roller drivers, sanitaryworkers, night watchmen, record clerks and Mechanics, who possess therequired qualification, were permitted to be appointed as Jeep Driverby the Panchayat Union. While the aforesaid categories were permittedto be appointed as Jeep Drivers, the category of Gang Coolie was notmentioned in G.O.Ms.No.262.10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitionercontends that instead of refusing to approve the proposals forregularisation of the petitioner in the post of driver, the firstrespondent ought to have sent the proposals to the Government fornecessary orders, when the first respondent entertained any doubtabout the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.262. The learned counsel alsopoints out that the 'Gang Coolie' has to be read into G.O.Ms.No.262,since the purpose of G.O.Ms.No.262 was to appoint categories likewatchmen, sanitary workers, etc. as Driver. Even otherwise, theGovernment has necessary powers to pass appropriate orders,permitting the petitioner to continue as driver.11. I have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleaderfor the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the Panchayat Unionpassed a resolution for appointing the petitioner as a driver. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was, in fact, utilised as a driver on the death of the regular driveri.e., from 10.04.1994, by the Panchyat Union. Thereafter, when theRevenue Divisional Officer directed the Panchyat Union to send thepetitioner to drive his vehicle, he was sent there to drive hisvehicle. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that he was alsoutilised in 'ARIVOLI IYAKKAM' for driving the jeep. He was alsoutilised for driving the Light Motor Vehicle for the Thasildar,Vandavasi. All the authorities namely, the Panchayat Union Council,the Commissioner for Panchayat Union, the District Collectorrecommended for his appointment as a Jeep Driver. In fact, the replyof the respondents states in Paragraph-3 that the District Collectorrecommended in the Proceedings No.9461/99Pc1 dated 10.05.1999 forappointment of the petitioner as a temporary driver, pending furtherorders from the concerned authorities, taking into account his goodservices and experiences as Jeep Driver. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced theSalary Certificate of the petitioner, dated 20.08.1999, issued by thethird respondent, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner isworking as a Jeep Driver as on today. Hence, the petitioner has beenserving as a Driver for the past fifteen years.13. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned counsel forthe petitioner is perfectly justified in stating that the purpose ofG.O.Ms.No.262 is not to exclude the persons like Gang Coolies whenthe other categories of similar nature are permitted to be appointedas drivers by giving preference. Here is a case, where the petitionerwas utilised by various authorities for driving jeep. 14. In such circumstances, the third respondent is herebydirected to send proposals to the fourth respondent forregularisation of the services of the petitioner as driver from10.04.1994 and the fourth respondent is directed to pass appropriateorders thereon, regularising the services of the petitioner witheffect from 10.04.1994, taking into account the aforesaid facts. Thethird respondent is directed to send the said proposals within aperiod for four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this orderand the fourth respondent is directed to pass appropriate orderswithin a period of twelve weeks thereafter.15. With the above direction the Writ Petition is disposedof. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rnsTo1. The Director of Rural Development Department of Rural Development Panagal Building, Saidapet Chennai -152. The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannmalai.3. The Commissioner, Pernamallur Panchayat Union, Pernamallur Thiruvannamalai District.4. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamilnadu Rural Development of Panchayat Fort St.George, Chennai - 91 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.413961 cc To Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate, SR.41693W.P.NO.8562 OF 2007GG(CO)SRA(10/9/2009)