M DHANDAPANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Applications in O.A.Nos.1895 of 2001 and 366 of 2003 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.Nos.49612 of 2006 and 14366 of 2007.

(2.) THE District Collector, Coimbatore, passed an order dated 30.06.1984 stating that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2509, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 24.12.1982, directing to fill up the posts of Male Nurse, Female Nurse and Night Watchman permanently at Panchayat Union Ayurvedic Dispensary, Dhali, Udumalpet Panchayat Union, from 01.04.1979. Based on the aforesaid order, the District Employment Exchange was addressed to send a list of persons eligible to hold those posts. Based on the sponsorship, Interview Cards were sent to 9 persons including the petitioner. In the letter dated 25.08.1986 of the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, those persons were directed to appear for interview on 28.08.1986 with the Certificates mentioned therein. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the said interview and was selected for the post of Scavenger-cum-Night Watchman. He was granted Dearness Allowance besides Basic Pay. By an order dated 12.01.1996, he was also granted scale of pay by the Commissioner, Udumalpet Panchayat Union and arrears were paid.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the petitioner was appointed on contingent basis contrary to the G.O.Ms.Mo.878, Rural Development Department, dated 15.05.1981. As per the G.O.Ms.Mo.878, Rural Development Department, dated 15.05.1981, no person should be appointed in contingent establishment after 01.04.1981. However, the petitioner was appointed on contrary to the said Government Order. In these circumstances, proposals were sent to the Director of Rural Development, regularising the service of the petitioner, who was appointed after 01.04.1981. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.161, Rural Development (E-7) Department, dated 26.06.2000 to regularise the service of 171 contingent employees including the petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years of service. Though the regularisation was ordered on completion of 10 years of service and to give monetary benefits, it was directed to be sanctioned with effect from 26.06.2000, the date of issuance of Government Order. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and the third respondent has also correctly passed an order dated 07.02.2001 to recover the excess amount that was paid contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.161, Rural Development (E-7) Department dated 26.06.2000.