STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. JANSIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is made to the common order dtd. 3/3/2021 recorded on W.P.Nos. 16416, 24744, 16410 and 16421 of 2019. These appeals are by the respondents in the writ petitions.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant authorities has submitted that, directions by learned Single Judge to regularize the service of the writ petitioners is erroneous since the petitioners had not completed required service on the cut-off date - 1/1/2006 and therefore the same is required to be interfered with. It is also submitted that, the appointment of the writ petitioners was not after following due process of law, therefore the writ petitions itself were not maintainable and grant of relief was too far for the writ petitioners. Learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v Uma Devi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, more particularly para : 45 thereof to contend that, the directions by learned Single Judge are against the law and therefore relief ought not to have been granted. Reliance is also placed on the other decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) J&K Public Service Commission and others v Dr.Narinder Mohan and others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 630, (ii) Union of India and Others v A.S.Pillai and others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 448, (iii) State of Tamil Nadu Through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and others v A.Singamuthu reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113, (iv) The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary and others v M.Seeniammal and others reported in 2014-4-L.W.657, (v) State of Rajasthan and others v Daya Lal and others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429, (vi) State of Tamil Nadu by its Secretary, Public Works Department and others v S.John Charles recorded on W.A.Nos.2875 of 2018 dtd. 16/8/2019 and (viii) full Bench decision of this Court in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Public Works Department and others v R.Kaliyamoorthy recorded on W.A.Nos.158 of 2016 and cognate appeals dtd. 3/12/2019. It is submitted that these appeals be entertained.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents workmen - original writ petitioners has submitted that, on the basis of the material on record including the details of the length of service of each of the writ petitioner, learned Single Judge has granted relief on the basis of the policy of the State, which can not be said to be erroneous in any manner and therefore these appeals be dismissed. In response to the reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Devi (supra) as relied on, on behalf of the appellant State authorities, learned advocate for the original writ petitioners has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and has submitted that, the directions given by learned Single Judge be not interfered with. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545, (ii) Hari Nandan Prasad and another v Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and another reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190, (iii) State of Tamil Nadu v Govindasamy reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769, (iv) State of Tamil Nadu v Singamuthu reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113, (v) Delhi Jal Board v National Campain for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and allied workers and others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 568, (vi) Netram Sahu v State of Chattisgarh and others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430, (vii) Rajnish Kumar Mishra and others v State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 648. It is submitted that these appeals be dismissed.