V. SARASWATHI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination passed by the respondent dated 13.06.2014 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to permit her to joint duty as Watchman in the existing vacancy and regularise her service with effect from 27.11.2000, on the date on which she was appointed as Watchman.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Sweeper through Employment Exchange by the second respondent on 06.12.1995 and during the year 2000, her husband died leaving behind herself and her three daughters. On 27.11.2000, she was appointed as Full Time Watchman in the existing vacancy by the 2nd respondent and she joined duty on 04.12.2000. After a lapse of four months, the 2 nd respondent, by order dated 09.04.2001, reverted her as Part Time Sweeper, despite the fact that she was appointed in a permanent retirement vacancy. Challenging the reversion order, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.3548 of 2001 and obtained an order of interim stay to the impugned order of reversion. Even after production of the interim order of stay, the 2 nd respondent, without obeying the order of stay, compelled the petitioner to work as Part Time Sweeper with meagre salary and as such, she continued till 07.01.2008. The petitioner had worked about 13 years continuously without any interruption. Due to economic condition, she could not maintain her health and she fell in ill and she could not attend duty from 08.01.2008 to 30.09.2011. On 01.10.2011 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Headmaster of the School to permit her to join duty by enclosing a Medical Certificate. Though the Headmaster of the School forwarded the same, the 2nd respondent has not passed any order permitting the petitioner to join duty. Due to abolition of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, O.A.No.3548 of 2001 was renumbered as W.P.No.178 of 2007 and it was disposed of on 08.02.2012 by setting aside the impugned order of reversion with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In the meantime, the juniors to the petitioner were absorbed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.22, P & AR Department, dated 22.08.2006 on completion of 10 years of their service. Even the benefit of the said G.O. has been extended, the service of the petitioner would be regularized and she would be entitled for leave on medical grounds.

(3.) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner herself absented from duty for a long time and therefore, no show cause notice need be issued and she was terminated from service. He would further submit that the impugned order sent to the petitioner twice returned with an endorsement "Door Locked" and "Insufficient Address" and therefore, the impugned order could not be served to the petitioner. Thus, he prayed to dismiss this petition.