P RAVICHANDRAN ASSISTANT ENGINEER (AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING) AND ORS Vs. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner namely, P. Ravichandran has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the first Respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 257, Agricultural (Btep-3) Department dated 12.7.2000 in so far as regularization of the Petitioner with effect from 16.7.1993 and consequential order passed by the second Respondent in his proceedings Lr. No. 42563/Btep 3/2004-2 dated 11.7.2005 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the first Respondent to regularize the service of the Petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from the date of joining on 29.1.1989.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) on compassionate grounds since his father late S.S. Perumal Raja, the then Superintendent in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agricultural Engineering), Soil-Conservation Scheme, Srivilliputhur died in harness on 22.3.1987. Though the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and the same was made initially under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, there was a delay in regularizing the Petitioner's service on account of the fact that the Assistant Engineers (Agricultural Engineering) who were also appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Subordinates Service Rules approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of their service with effect from the date of their appointment. The Tribunal allowed the applications filed by the similarly placed persons by giving direction to the Government to regularize their services with effect from their date of appointment. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Government considered the cases of the Assistant Engineers(Agricultural Engineering) who were appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules and the Petitioner's case was also considered along with others and the Government after giving careful consideration of the request issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 511 Agriculture (A-III) Department dated 19.9.1995 regularizing the services of as many as 115 Assistant Engineers (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from their date of initial appointment. The Petitioner's name was also found in serial No. 107 in the said G.O. regularizing the service as Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) with effect from 29.1.1989.

(3.) Subsequently, the first Respondent had chosen to issue a letter No. 16276/AA 4/96-3, dated 12.12.1996 deleting the name of the Petitioner from the list of 115 Engineers stating that the case of the Petitioner can be considered separately and orders will be issued after getting specific concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, further citing another reason that the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the Petitioner made representation before the first Respondent. On considering the Petitioner's representation, the first Respondent issued an order in G.O. (Ms) No. 257 Agriculture (Btep 3) Department dated 12.7.2000 regularizing the service of the Petitioner with effect from 16.7.1993 F.N. stating that G.O. was issued in G.O. Ms. No. 156 (Labor & Employment Department) dated 16.7.1993 for regularization of service of candidates appointed on compassionate grounds with effect from the date of issue of the said G.O. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that when there is no specific rule to give the benefit of regularization to the persons who are appointed on compassionate ground, the Respondent cannot treat the Petitioner differently for the reason that the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground.