B SEKAR Vs. NIRANJAN MARDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contempt complained of is in respect of the order of this Court, dated 05.01.2007 passed in W.P.No.36813 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioners who were employed as 'Non Muster Roll' (NMR) under the third respondent municipality stated to have been appointed on 12.08.1993, 03.08.1993, 10.09.1993 and 09.08.1993 respectively and they have worked in the said municipality till 13.02.2002 and thereafter, they were not given employment. Apart from that there were 10 persons including the petitioners who were working in the third respondent municipality, out of them, one Gunasekaran has moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3284 of 2003 and by an order dated 30.09.2003, the Tribunal has directed the respondents to regularise his service as per G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999. When the said order was not implemented, he has filed W.P.No.33364 of 2004, and by order dated 31.03.2005, this Court directed the respondents to comply with the order of the Tribunal. THE third respondent filed an appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 154 days and the said petition was dismissed by the Division Bench thereby confirming the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as well as the order of the learned single Judge. THE petitioners who are similarly placed as that of the said Gunasekaran in respect of whom, the orders were implemented, have requested to regularise their services. THE third respondent by proceedings dated 06.03.2006 has asked for certain particulars and the petitioners have insisted that they have been employed as NMRs as admitted by the Municipality and therefore, they have filed the above writ petition for a direction against the third respondent to regularise their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999 as permanent employees at the entry level category and also grant them appropriate time scale of pay.

(3.) WHILE it is the case of the petitioners as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by this Court amounts to a positive direction to appoint the petitioners since it is not in dispute that the petitioners were employed as NMRs between 12.08.1993 to 01.06.2002 and therefore, the letter of the third respondent in rejecting the claim amounts to disobedience of the order especially when the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal.