K KANDASAMY Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER; ASSISTANT ELEMENTARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person, being deaf and dumb, was appointed as a part time Sweeper by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, in the appointment order, dated 29.08.1996, along with other two persons, namely, M.Pitchaiya and M.Ramakrishnan, who are not physically challenged. Under G.O.Ms.No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006, the Government based on the announcement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly that persons, who are in the Government Department on daily wages basis, completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006, has directed them to be regularised in the said posts. It was based on the said Government order, the other two persons appointed along with the petitioner, namely, M.Pitchai and M.Ramakrishnan, were regularised as per the orders of the District Educational Officer, dated 30.06.2009, even though as on 01.01.2006, they have not completed 10 years of service on consolidated pay. It is seen that they were regularised based on a direction given by this Court in W.P. No.10887 of 2007 and W.P.No.11326 of 2006 respectively directing the educational authorities to consider the representation.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner has also filed a writ petition, as that of the two persons, W.P.No.2649 of 2007 and this Court has also issued a similar direction to consider the representation by an order dated 23.03.2007. However, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected under the impugned order passed by the first respondent stating that as on 01.01.2006, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service.

(3.) In respect of the physically challenged persons, the Government has also passed G.O.Ms.No.151 Social Welfare Department, dated 16.10.2008, to the effect that physically challenged persons, who are in service on consolidated pay for more than two years, shall be granted regularisation and time scale of pay. The writ petition is filed not only on the ground that when in respect of the similarly situated two persons by applying G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006, their services were regularised, the petitioner is denied the said right and therefore, there is an arbitrariness, apart from another ground that even based on the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 16.10.2008, the petitioner being physically challenged person is entitled to be regularised after completion of two years of service irrespective of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 16.10.2008.