A. Aruldoss v. Rural Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.10.2011 CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARANW.P. Nos.26784 to 26787 of 2010A.Aruldoss..Petitioner in W.P.No.26784 of 2010S.Selvam..Petitioner in W.P.No.26785 of 2010B.Durai..Petitioner in W.P.No.26786 of 2010S.Jambu @ Parthiban..Petitioner in W.P.No.26787 of 2010Vs.1.The SecretaryRural Development DepartmentGovernment of TamilNaduFort St.GeorgeChennai-92.The CommissionerDirectorate of Rural DevelopmentPanchayat RajJeans Road, Panangal BuildingSaidapetChennai-153.The District CollectorKanchipuram DistrictKanchipuram4.The Block Development OfficerKanchipuram Panchayat UnionSirukaveripakkam VillageKanchipuram District ..Respondents in all WPs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamuscalling for the records relating of the second respondent in hisproceedings in Na.Ka.No.245/2010 E2 dated 27.09.2010 and quash the sameand thereby direct the respondents herein to regularize the service ofthe petitioners and appoint the petitioner as Night Watchman or OfficeAssistant in the Rural Development Department as per the G.O.Ms.No.55dated 15.06.2006 of the Rural Development Department, Government of TamilNadu with all monetary and service benefits. For Petitionerin all WPS:Mr.N.SureshFor Respondentsin all WPs:Mr.R.RavichandranAdditional Government Pleader COMMON ORDERThe petitioners, who are working as daily labourers as Handpumpfitter assistants in Kancheepuram Panchayat Union from 1983 onwards arebefore this Court challenging the rejection order passed by the secondrespondent by which, the petitioners claim for regularization of serviceas per G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006 was rejected. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as dailylabourers as Handpump fitter assistants in Kancheepuram Panchayat Unionfrom 1983 onwards. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No.10 of 2001, dated 04.01.2001, theGovernment passed the G.O.Ms.No.55,Rural Development and PanchayatDepartment, dated 15.06.2006 by which the daily labourers totaling to933 persons would be appointed as Night Watchmen or Office Assistants inthe Panchayat Union, on compliance of certain conditions. 3. According to the petitioners, they are qualified to be appointedas Night Watchmen or Office Assistants and in fact, the third respondentrecommended to the fourth respondent giving details about thepetitioners' service for regularization. In spite of that, thepetitioners' service were not regularized. Therefore the petitionersfiled writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15301 to 15304 of 2009 seeking a writ ofMandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners serviceand to appoint them as Night Watchmen or Office Assistants which wasdisposed of by this Court on 04.08.2009. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the second respondentpassed an order dated 1.10.2009 rejecting the claim of the petitioners on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the ground that the petitioners did not work as handpump fitterAssistants after 31.07.1997. The said order was challenged before thisCourt in W.P.Nos.24162 to 24165 of 2009 which was disposed of on29.3.2010 holding that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1983and were continuously working till 1997 under the fourth respondent andthey satisfied the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated15.06.2006. However, this Court finally directed the petitioners toproduce the documents to show that they were in service from 1983 tillthe date. 5. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court inW.P.Nos. 24162 to 24165 of 2009, dated 29.03.2010, the petitioners againapproached the second respondent, who rejected the petitioners claimstating that the petitioners produced the documents regarding theirservice only upto March 1997 and they were deployed as dailywager underthe Panchayat Contractors and therefore they are not entitled to get thebenefits under G.O.Ms.No.55. The said order is being under challengebefore this Court. 6. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the materialsavailable on records. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are employed as dailylabouers as Handpump fitter assistants in Kancheepuram Panchayat Unionfrom the year 1983. It is evident from the fourth respondent's letterdated 25.06.2008 addressed to the third respondent that the petitionersworked in the Panchayat Union from 1983 to 01.04.1997 and recommendationwas made for regularization. The recommendation made by the fourthrespondent on 11.09.2009 reads as follows:-mjidj; bjhlh;e;J fh";rpg[uk; Cuhl;rp xd;wpaj;jpy; ifgk;g[ bghUj;Jeh;cjtpahsh;fshf fPH;fhZk; egh;fs; 1983 Kjy; khh;r; 1997 Koa gzpg[hpe;Js;shh;fs;/mjd; tptuk; tUkhW https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tvz;/bgah;je;ijbgah;tpyhrk;fy;tpj;jFjpgzpg[hpe;jfhyk;1v/mUs;jh!;mf!;Od;2gp/Jiwghyd;3v!;/bry;tk;rutzd;4v!;/$k;g[ (v)ghh;j;jpgd;vk;/Rg;gpukzpbe/22rpWfhnthpg;ghf;fk.;g$id nfhapy; bjU10tJ tFg;g[njh;r;rp1983?19978tJ tFg;g[njh;r;rp1983?19978tJ tFg;g[njh;r;rp1983?19979tJ tFg;g[njh;r;rp1983?1997mjw;fhd Cjpak; tH';fpa tptuk; ,j;Jld; ,izf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,t;tYtyf foj vz;/ 2276/97/m5 ehs; 13/05/07 fojj;jpy; Cuhl;rpfspy; cs;sifgk;g[fspy; mt;tg;nghJ Vw;gLk; gGJfis Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth;fns cs;S:h;fSf;Fk;gGJ ePf;fk; bra;a bjhpe;j egh;fisf; bfhz;L ifgk;g[ gGJ ePf;fk; bra;J bfhs;syhk;vd;Wk;. ,jw;fhd bryt[ bjhifapid Cuhl;rp epjpapypUe;J nk;wbfhs;syhk; vdbjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;gpwF fpuhk Cuhl;rpfspy; Vw;gLk; ifgk;g[ gGJ ePf;fk; gzpfs; bra;J.Mjw;fhd Typj; bjhifapid Cuhl;rpfspy; ,Ue;j bgw;W tUfpd;wdh;/ mjw;FgpwF 01/04/97Kjy; ,d;W tiu ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; gzpg[hpatpy;iy/ mjw;fhd gjpt[fs; Vjk; ,y;iyvd;gij ,jd; K:yk; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/8. The aforesaid communication makes it very clear that thepetitioners worked from 1983 to March 1997 which entitles them to get thebenefits under the G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006. The only condition tobe complied with by the petitioners is that their appointment should bemade from the year 1983 to 1.4.1997 and continuously worked for tenyears. As stated above, the petitioners complied with the aforesaidconditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.55. When that is a position, thepetitioners should have been regularized in service. 9. Whether the petitioners should have continued in the service ofthe Panchayat Union after 1.4.1997 is not the condition spelt out in theG.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006. Even otherwise it is only at the instanceof the fourth respondent by communication dated 13.05.1997, thepetitioners were brought under the control of the Panchayat. As perfourth respondent's order, the petitioners were brought under the control https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Panchayat, the same cannot be employed against the petitioners todeprive of the benefits available under G.O.Ms.No.55. 10. That apart, this Court by the order dated 29.03.2010 inW.P.Nos.24162 to 24165 of 2009 filed by the petitioners herein,categorically held that the petitioners complied with the conditionsprescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006 and the paragraph 10 ofthe said order reads as follows:-"10. On a perusal of the materials available onrecord, the petitioners have been appointed in theyear 1983 and continuously they were working till1997 under the fourth respondent. G.O.Ms.No.55,dated 15.06.2006 stipulates that the persons, whohave been appointed as hand pump fitter assistantbetween 1983 to 01.04.1997 and have been working fora period of 10 years would be appointed as nightwatchmen or officer assistants. So far as thepetitioners are concerned, on a perusal of the letterof the fourth respondent, I find that the petitionershave squarely satisfied the said condition. Thoughit has been stated by the fourth respondent thatafter 1997, they did not work under the control ofthem, on a perusal of the letter dated 13.05.1997issued by the fourth respondent, I find that theservices of the petitioners were brought under thecontrol of the Panchayat Presidents. Therefore,naturally, the records pertaining to the petitionersservice would not be available in the fourthrespondent's office in the year 1997. Therefore, Iam of the opinion that the second respondent withoutconsidering these aspects rejected the claim of thepetitioner. Under such circumstances, I hold thatthe order passed by the second respondent is liableto be quashed and accordingly, the same is herebyquashed. The second respondent is directed toconsider the claim of the petitioners approximatelyin consonance with the G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006and the petitioners are also directed to produce therelevant documents to show that they were in servicefrom 1983 till date in support of their claim. Thesecond respondent is further directed to consider theclaim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orderswithin a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order. "The aforesaid order would make it clear that the issue was already https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decided holding that the petitioners are entitled to get benefit underthe G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 15.06.2006. Admittedly no appeal was filedagainst the said order and the order is binding on the respondents. TheRespondents are estopped from re-agitating the issue which attainedfinality before this Court. When that is the position, the secondrespondent cannot hold that the petitioners are not entitled forregularization of service, as they were working under the panchayatcontractors from April 1997 onwards. 11. The last paragraph of the impugned order reads as follows:-jh';fs; 1983y; bghUj;Jeh; cjtpahsuhf epakdk;bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhYk; 1997 Vg;uy; khjk; Kjy; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak;/Cuhl;rpepjpapd; fPH; Typ bgwhj fhuzj;jpdhy;. Cuhl;rpapy; bjhlh;e;J gzpg[hpe;jjhf bfhs;s ,ayhj epiyapy;. jh';fs; murhiz epiy vz;/55. Cuftsh;r;rp kw;Wk; Cuhl;rpj;Jiw. ehs;/ 15/06/06 d;go mYtyfcjtpahsh; ;/,ut[f;fhtyh;fshf epakdk; bra;a nfhUk; j';fsJ 4/5/2010njjpapl;l kD ,jd;K:yk; epuhfhpf;fg;gLfpwJ vd;gijbjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ The aforesaid impugned order demonstrates that the petitioners wereappointed from 1983 to March 1997 and they were employed from April 1997onwards under the panchayat contractors. Having found that thepetitioners are employed from 1983 to March 1997, the second respondentcannot reject the claim of the petitioners. As stated above, the onlyrequirement as per the G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.6.2006 is that theappointment of the petitioners should be between 1983 to March 1997 andcontinued to be in service for ten years. The service after April 1997under Panchayat is not material for regularization of petitionersservice. Moreover the employment of the petitioners under the panchayatcontractors is only at the instance of the respondents and therefore thepetitioners cannot be found fault with for that and their claim cannot berejected. 12. For the reasoning stated above, the impugned orders are setaside and the second respondent is directed to regularize the service ofthe petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. Writ petitions are allowed. No costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. For compliance call on 1-12-2011. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarariTo 1.The SecretaryRural Development DepartmentGovernment of TamilNaduFort St.GeorgeChennai-92.The CommissionerDirectorate of Rural DevelopmentPanchayat RajJeans Road, Panangal BuildingSaidapetChennai-153.The District CollectorKanchipuram DistrictKanchipuram4.The Block Development OfficerKanchipuram Panchayat UnionSirukaveripakkam VillageKanchipuram District +1cc to Mr.R.Ravichandran, AGP SR 63693+1cc to Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, SR 63654+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 63622RV(CO)km/4.11.W.P.Nos.26784 to 26787 of 2010