R GOPI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as casual labourer on daily wage basis in the Office of the Deputy Inspector of Labour, Thuckalay in the Labour Department. He joined duty as daily rated workman on 12.07.1991. A proposal was sent by the 2nd respondent for regularisation of the service of the petitioner and similarly situated persons to the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent returned the proposals and refused to regularise the service by the order dated 08.05.2000. The reason given in the order dated 08.05.2000 is that already there were 327 surplus Office Assistants in the Labour Department and they were to be transferred at the appropriate vacant places and therefore, the proposal for regularisation of the services of the daily paid workman could not be considered. Based on the same, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2000. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4781 of 2001 (W.P.No.10148 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 08.06.2000 by the 2nd respondent and for direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 10.07.1991 from the date of initial appointment.

(2.) The respondents filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Government issued G.O.Ms.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Dated 10.10.1988 for appointing the daily paid employees in regular vacancies that could arise. The aforesaid G.O. is applicable to persons who were appointed on daily wages before 01.03.1993. It is stated that the 2nd respondent sent proposals for regularisation but the 1st respondent rejected the proposal stating that there were 327 surplus Office Assistants in the Labour Department.

(3.) Heard both sides.