R.THULASIRAMAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings of the first respondent made in Letter No.28541/(Soi.jil. 4(l)/2014-4, dated 27.04.2015 and quash the same consequently, direct the first and second respondents to treat the earlier services rendered by the petitioner from 27.08.1981 to 04.08.1984 as Junior Assistant in the respondent department and the break period from 05.08.1984 to 22.05.1992 for the purpose of promotion, all other service and attendant benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on the demise of his father, who was working as a Foreman in the respondent Department. He was appointed on 27.08.1981 as Junior Assistant. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981, wherein, it is specified that if there is already any earning member in the family of the Government Servant, who dies in harness, the other dependents of the deceased Government Servant will not be eligible for the concession of appointment in Government Departments. In view of the G.O., the employment granted to the petitioner was cancelled on 04.08.1984. Thereafter, the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.1044, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.11.1990, has amended the earlier G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981, and incorporated a proviso to paragraph No.3 of the said G.O. The proviso reads as under:-

(3.) In the light of the G.O., the petitioner's service was restored with effect from 22.05.1992. However, his appointment was treated as fresh appointment and the continuity of service was not given. Therefore, he made a representation to the Department and since the same has not been considered, he approached this Court by way of W.P.No.25994 of 2014, wherein, this Court, by its order dated 24.09.2014, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and pass orders. Accordingly, the respondents have considered the representation and passed the impugned order holding that his service will be counted only from the date of his re-appointment i.e. 22.05.1992 and it cannot be regularised with effect from the date of his original appointment i.e. 27.08.1981. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.