High Court · 2024

W.P.No.27296 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.04.2024CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.27296 of 2022M.G.Enayathulla.. Petitioner Versus1. The Principle Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Public Work Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.2. The Engineer in Chief (WRD) and Chief Engineer (General), Chepauk - Chennai - 5.3. The Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Ground Water Division, Vellore District.4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Melmonavur, Vellore - 6... RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records which culminated in Letter No.18145/C2/2018-6, dated 18.11.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direction directing the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20221st respondent to regulrise the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Irrigation Assistant with effect from 01.07.2007, the date on which the petitioner completed ten years of service as Mazdoor (NMR) on daily wage basis in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.202, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 01.08.2012 and in the light of the proposal, dated 05.05.2011 of the fourth respondent, the order, dated 29.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.36290 of 2016.For Petitioner: Mr.S.ManiFor Respondents: Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government AdvocateORDERThis Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 18.11.2021, in and by which, the representation of the petitioner to regularise in the post of Mazdoor was considered and rejected.2. The impugned order rejected the case of the petitioner holding that since the petitioner's service was on contract during the period 2001-2010, the said service cannot be taken into account and as such, he is not entitled to regularisation as per the scheme framed by the Government for regularising of similarly placed employees.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20223. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Mazdoor with effect from 01.07.1996 and is continued as such till date. While so, when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 proposing to regularise all the employees on Non-Muster Roll, the same was not implemented to the employees such as the petitioner. Therefore, the employees association, in the name of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department Employees Welfare Association, along with a few individual employees filed W.P.No.22104 of 2006. By the order, dated 12.12.2007, the said Writ Petition was allowed with the following directions :-"12. Though number of representations were given, all have been rejected without any consideration of real situation. Hence, it is a fit case where a direction has got to be given to the respondents to first engage the members of the petitioners Association in the list of NMR Roll and also to regularise their service as applicable to the other daily wage earners as found in G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006, within a period of twelve weeks herefrom. Accordingly, a direction is issued and the writ petition is ordered. No costs."4. The respondents went on appeal in W.A.No.89 of 2010 against the said order and the appeal was dismissed and the above order was confirmed by the judgment, dated 10.02.2011. Thereafter, the Government called for proforma of all the leftover employees and the proforma of the petitioner was also submitted to the Government. However, when the order in 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 01.08.2012 was passed, even though the similarly situated employees' names found place, the petitioner's name alone was not included. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.36290 of 2016 and by the order, dated 29.11.2016, the Government was directed to consider the case of the petitioner, pursuant to which, the impugned order has been passed.5. Upon perusal of the above material records of the case and also the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is very clear that there is no quarrel over the proposition that the petitioner has been engaged with effect from 01.07.1996 and he satisfies the other criteria for regularisation which is followed in respect of the similarly situated employees. The only contention raised is that even though the petitioner is working in the department, the services were through a Contractor for the period 2001-2010. However, on a perusal of the proforma given by the respondents themselves for regularisation, with respect of all the employees, it reads in column Nos.6 and 17 as follows :-jpdf;Typ gzpahsh;fs; tud;Kiw bra;ag;gl njitg;gLk; tptu';fs;6,th; gzp g[hpe;j ehl;fs; / tUlk; thhpahf:gzpapy; nrh;e;j njjp? 01/06/1997 (4044 ehl;fs;)4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022jpdf;Typjpdf;Typxg;ge;j mog;gilYDYDYD4) 2011342199710920013655) 2012241199810920023046) 201328619998320033067) 2014270200026620043668) 20152911) 200817420053659) 20161912) 2009342200636510) 20171913) 20103432007365 14262008182bkhj;jk; 2238bkhj;jk;1426261817bjhlh;r;rpahf 10 Mz;Lfs; gzpg[hpe;Js;shuh? kw;Wk; xt;bthU Mz;Lk; gzpg[hpe;j bkhj;j ehl;fs;:Mk; (4044) ehl;fs; + 1025 ehl;fs;jpdf;Typjpdf;Typxg;ge;j mog;gilYDYDYD20113421997109200136520123431998109200230420133401999832003306201427020002662004366201529120081742005365201619120093422006365201719120103432007365 14262008182bkhj;jk; 2238bkhj;jk; 1426 2618Therefore, both the services on daily wages as well as on contract basis were taken into account.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20226. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has positively asserted that the employees who are regularised by the G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 01.08.2012 were also similarly engaged through Contractors. The counter-affidavit also does not deny the fact that the other persons, regularised vide G.O.Ms.No.202, are not comparable to that of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner alone cannot be discriminated against. When the said ground has been raised during the arguments, this Court also granted time for the respondents to verify and point out the difference if any. Inspite of two opportunities given, the respondents are also not able to point out that the petitioner's claim is erroneous. If the similarly situated employees have been regularised by the very scheme and even the proforma of the scheme contains the column to calculate the services on contract basis also, then, the petitioner alone cannot be discriminated.7. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms :-(i) The impugned order, dated 18.11.2021 is quashed;(ii) The first respondent is directed to regularise the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Irrigation Assistant with effect from 01.07.2007 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022i.e., from the date on which the petitioner completed 18 years of service as Mazdoor on a daily wage basis in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.202, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 01.08.2012 with all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner;(iii) Considering the fact that the petitioner has immediately approached this Court by way of the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.36290 of 2016, the petitioner has to be granted all the consequential and monetary benefits;(iv) There shall be no order as to costs. 26.04.2024Index: yesSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: yesgrsTo1. The Principle Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Public Work Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.2. The Engineer in Chief (WRD) and Chief Engineer (General), Chepauk - Chennai - 5.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20223. The Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Ground Water Division, Vellore District.4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Melmonavur, Vellore - 6.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grs W.P.No.27296 of 202226.04.2024 9/9

W.P.No.27296 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.04.2024CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.27296 of 2022M.G.Enayathulla.. Petitioner Versus1. The Principle Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Public Work Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.2. The Engineer in Chief (WRD) and Chief Engineer (General), Chepauk - Chennai - 5.3. The Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Ground Water Division, Vellore District.4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Melmonavur, Vellore - 6... RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records which culminated in Letter No.18145/C2/2018-6, dated 18.11.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direction directing the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20221st respondent to regulrise the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Irrigation Assistant with effect from 01.07.2007, the date on which the petitioner completed ten years of service as Mazdoor (NMR) on daily wage basis in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.202, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 01.08.2012 and in the light of the proposal, dated 05.05.2011 of the fourth respondent, the order, dated 29.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.36290 of 2016.For Petitioner: Mr.S.ManiFor Respondents: Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government AdvocateORDERThis Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 18.11.2021, in and by which, the representation of the petitioner to regularise in the post of Mazdoor was considered and rejected.2. The impugned order rejected the case of the petitioner holding that since the petitioner's service was on contract during the period 2001-2010, the said service cannot be taken into account and as such, he is not entitled to regularisation as per the scheme framed by the Government for regularising of similarly placed employees.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20223. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Mazdoor with effect from 01.07.1996 and is continued as such till date. While so, when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006 proposing to regularise all the employees on Non-Muster Roll, the same was not implemented to the employees such as the petitioner. Therefore, the employees association, in the name of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department Employees Welfare Association, along with a few individual employees filed W.P.No.22104 of 2006. By the order, dated 12.12.2007, the said Writ Petition was allowed with the following directions :-"12. Though number of representations were given, all have been rejected without any consideration of real situation. Hence, it is a fit case where a direction has got to be given to the respondents to first engage the members of the petitioners Association in the list of NMR Roll and also to regularise their service as applicable to the other daily wage earners as found in G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 28.02.2006, within a period of twelve weeks herefrom. Accordingly, a direction is issued and the writ petition is ordered. No costs."4. The respondents went on appeal in W.A.No.89 of 2010 against the said order and the appeal was dismissed and the above order was confirmed by the judgment, dated 10.02.2011. Thereafter, the Government called for proforma of all the leftover employees and the proforma of the petitioner was also submitted to the Government. However, when the order in 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 01.08.2012 was passed, even though the similarly situated employees' names found place, the petitioner's name alone was not included. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.36290 of 2016 and by the order, dated 29.11.2016, the Government was directed to consider the case of the petitioner, pursuant to which, the impugned order has been passed.5. Upon perusal of the above material records of the case and also the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is very clear that there is no quarrel over the proposition that the petitioner has been engaged with effect from 01.07.1996 and he satisfies the other criteria for regularisation which is followed in respect of the similarly situated employees. The only contention raised is that even though the petitioner is working in the department, the services were through a Contractor for the period 2001-2010. However, on a perusal of the proforma given by the respondents themselves for regularisation, with respect of all the employees, it reads in column Nos.6 and 17 as follows :-jpdf;Typ gzpahsh;fs; tud;Kiw bra;ag;gl njitg;gLk; tptu';fs;6,th; gzp g[hpe;j ehl;fs; / tUlk; thhpahf:gzpapy; nrh;e;j njjp? 01/06/1997 (4044 ehl;fs;)4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022jpdf;Typjpdf;Typxg;ge;j mog;gilYDYDYD4) 2011342199710920013655) 2012241199810920023046) 201328619998320033067) 2014270200026620043668) 20152911) 200817420053659) 20161912) 2009342200636510) 20171913) 20103432007365 14262008182bkhj;jk; 2238bkhj;jk;1426261817bjhlh;r;rpahf 10 Mz;Lfs; gzpg[hpe;Js;shuh? kw;Wk; xt;bthU Mz;Lk; gzpg[hpe;j bkhj;j ehl;fs;:Mk; (4044) ehl;fs; + 1025 ehl;fs;jpdf;Typjpdf;Typxg;ge;j mog;gilYDYDYD20113421997109200136520123431998109200230420133401999832003306201427020002662004366201529120081742005365201619120093422006365201719120103432007365 14262008182bkhj;jk; 2238bkhj;jk; 1426 2618Therefore, both the services on daily wages as well as on contract basis were taken into account.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20226. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has positively asserted that the employees who are regularised by the G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 01.08.2012 were also similarly engaged through Contractors. The counter-affidavit also does not deny the fact that the other persons, regularised vide G.O.Ms.No.202, are not comparable to that of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner alone cannot be discriminated against. When the said ground has been raised during the arguments, this Court also granted time for the respondents to verify and point out the difference if any. Inspite of two opportunities given, the respondents are also not able to point out that the petitioner's claim is erroneous. If the similarly situated employees have been regularised by the very scheme and even the proforma of the scheme contains the column to calculate the services on contract basis also, then, the petitioner alone cannot be discriminated.7. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms :-(i) The impugned order, dated 18.11.2021 is quashed;(ii) The first respondent is directed to regularise the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Irrigation Assistant with effect from 01.07.2007 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022i.e., from the date on which the petitioner completed 18 years of service as Mazdoor on a daily wage basis in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.202, Public Works (C2) Department, dated 01.08.2012 with all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner;(iii) Considering the fact that the petitioner has immediately approached this Court by way of the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.36290 of 2016, the petitioner has to be granted all the consequential and monetary benefits;(iv) There shall be no order as to costs. 26.04.2024Index: yesSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: yesgrsTo1. The Principle Secretary to Government, Government of Tamilnadu, Public Work Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.2. The Engineer in Chief (WRD) and Chief Engineer (General), Chepauk - Chennai - 5.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 20223. The Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Ground Water Division, Vellore District.4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Work Department (WRD), Melmonavur, Vellore - 6.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27296 of 2022D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grs W.P.No.27296 of 202226.04.2024 9/9