GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. N. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State and an aggrieved contractual employee are in appeal against a judgment and order of December 23, 2020, by which the writ petition instituted by a transferred Corporation employee was substantially allowed.

(2.) The story really begins with a notification of December 20, 2019, but the history can be traced to 2016 by which the private appellant herein, who was arrayed as the fourth respondent to the writ petition, obtained an extension in service as the Chief Engineer of the Greater Chennai Corporation. The initial extension was for a period of two years on the ground that certain projects undertaken by the Corporation could be completed smoothly if the fourth respondent to the writ petition continued in service. A similar extension for a further period of two years followed in 2018, almost parroting the same lines. Thus, it must not be lost sight of that the fourth respondent to the writ petition was found to be indispensable for the completion of certain continuing projects in the Corporation in the City.

(3.) Against this backdrop, followed the notification of December 20, 2019, which was the subject-matter of the challenge in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was recorded in such notification that the State Government was pleased to issue two orders of postings and transfers as follows: