VARADARAJ Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner regularized as Tracer is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of endorsement bearing No.xxx:37:xxxx:2010 dtd. 14/10/2011 vide Annexure-T wherein the second respondent is intimated by the first respondent that the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization as Draftsman since the petitioner is initially appointed as Tracer on daily wage basis.

(2.) Heard learned counsel Sri.M.Babu Rao for petitioner, learned AGA Sri.Ramesh Jois M.V. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Babu Rao would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis on 1/10/1982 and he was discharging duties of Draftsman. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-A, certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Kabini Nala Division, Kollegal, certifying that the petitioner possesses qualification prescribed for the post of Draftsman and he is performing the duties of Draftsman. The petitioner was regularized under Annexure-C/Office Order dtd. 17/12/1993 in Group-C post in the pay scale of Rs.960.00 1760. Subsequently, the petitioner was regularized in the pay scale of 1040-1900 by correcting regularization order dtd. 17/12/1993. It is submitted that, immediately thereafter, the petitioner is said to have submitted a representation to regularize his services in the post of Draftsman which carries the pay scale of Rs.1190.002200. Learned counsel would submit that similar benefit was extended to one Sri.Naganna, who was discharging the functions of Draftsman and was regularized in the post of Draftsman in the pay scale of 1190-2200. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was recommended for regularization in the post of Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs.1190.002200 by the Executive Engineer as well as Chief Engineer, Kabini Nala Division, Kollegal. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner possesses qualification of SSLC and ITI certificate to hold the post of Draftsman. Therefore, the learned counsel Sri.Babu Rao contends that the petitioner had performed the duties of Draftsman since the date of his appointment on daily wage basis, and hence, he would be entitled for regularization in the post of Draftsman, as the similar benefit was extended to one Sri.Naganna. Therefore, he submits that the impugned letter dtd. 14/10/2011 (Annexure-T) is contrary to the material on record and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition and to direct the respondents to regularize his services in the post of Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs.1190.002200.