K.MURUGESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.337 of 2021 by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 04.11.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.10066 of 2014, which was dismissed along with two other writ petitions.

(2.) The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.337 of 2021, after completing his 10th Standard and acquiring higher qualification in Typewritting in both English and Tamil, was appointed as Mazdoor Grade-I in the Office of the fourth respondent - Irrigation Section, Alwarkurichi and had been working as NMR for over 21 years as of 2014. The appellant placed reliance on various Government Orders issued from time to time regularizing the services of NMRs like that of the appellant, who have been rendering continuous service for several years. Since the appellant had completed ten years of service as on 01.01.2003, representations dated 28.11.2007, 15.10.2007 and 09.10.2017 were submitted to the Authorities to regularize his service in terms of Government Orders, namely, G.O.Ms.No.680, dated 16.08.1995; G.O.Ms.No. 22, dated 28.02.2006; G.O.Ms.No.334, dated 19.10.2007; G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 15.04.2010; G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 07.05.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 01.08.2012. Since the representation was not considered, the appellant filed W.P.(MD) No.10498 of 2007 to regularise his services and since there was an attempt to disengage the services of the appellant, he had filed W.P.(MD) No.8705 of 2008, in which an order of status quo was granted. The writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.10498 of 2007 was disposed of to consider the appellant's representation and since the direction was not complied with, Cont.P.(MD) No.508 of 2008 was filed and it is thereafter, the official respondents stated that the appellant has not been in continuous employment for ten years.

(3.) The appellant would further state that the respondents had admitted that he had worked with them from 1993 to 2000 continuously as NMR and from 2001 to 2007 as contract labour. However, the records for the year 2001 was tampered and his father's name was erased and the name of one Shanmugavel was inserted and this tampering was done only to deny the appellant's lawful right to seek for regularization. This averment has been made by the appellant based upon the information secured by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.